What about, "treat AWS workers better"? Pay your people for their on call hours! Let them work on side projects and games in their spare time! Give them more than seven paid holidays. Give them more than two weeks vacation!
Only six weeks of paid parental leave?
I would absolutely be willing to pay more for AWS if I knew that amount was going to treating the poor folks who built it all better.
AWS/Amazon might be great for customers but it's a horrible place to work. Having worked in AWS for 3 years, almost all services are half baked, tech debt filled in all parts of the code. But hey, we never see any issue? It's because it has army of oncallers who are manually running commands and fixing issues.
I used to work in one of the DB services and we used to get 20+ pages (sev2) every day. Due to insane amount of pages every day, we used to have daily on-call rotations.
Yes I work at AWS. I’m never on call and I haven’t worked for more than 40 hours unless I’m learning something new trying to figure out. I control my own calendar and I manage expectations for my projects.
Have you thought that of a company had over 1.5 million employees, everyone’s experience wouldn’t be the same?
Besides, I purposefully put myself in a position that I wouldn’t have to relocate to a high cost of living area. I knew that Azure, AWS, and GCP had a Professional Services department that may require a lot of travel. But no relocation, no on call, etc.
Then a worldwide pandemic happened that reduced travel…
Amazon is a terrible place to work for your well-being generally (personal experience and data-based). But, 2 weeks vacation only applies to 1st year employees outside of CA.
Seattle dev: 1st year -> 2 weeks, 2-4th year -> 3 weeks, 5th+ year -> 4 weeks.
California dev: 1st year -> 3 weeks, 2-4th year -> 4 weeks, 5th+ year -> 5 weeks.
The actual reason is that long running invocations run synchronous workflows, typically requiring holding threads and sockets open for the entire duration of execution.
Lambda is a complex system, and holding those sockets for long times across many services could cause resource starvation issues. You've got load balancers, data plane, control plane, tenant vms, and a whole bunch of caches, and support services that all need to be ready to roll over the lifetime of the invocation.
And you have to consider the use case for draining and patching lambda pools. If someone is running a two hour function and you need to take down any server that's currently holding a thread or socket for it, you need to wait for the function to complete. You can't start a new load, so you are really inefficiently using resources until the function completes.
You gotta think about the 99% of people who don't make it.
What's the use of having a million washed up D-list actors?
Whereas if you fail on the journey to becoming an astronaut, you've at least got an engineering degree of something. Maybe you'll contribute by designing a machine to manufacture bearings for desks at a hospital or something.
Entertainment is valuable, but there are many forms of entertainment beyond television. Read a book, play a video game, invite friends over and do some fun stuff, etc. I am not a fan of TV(or streaming) because its the most passive form of entertainment around. Its valuable, but it also feels overvalued these days.
While I think they are productive at the moment in that they really push the economy by proxy through big budget movies and surrounding merch, I also feel that if the movie and TV industry disappeared that role would be easily filled by other things.
I don't. My personal position is that corporations are awful at moral judgments, and I'd vastly prefer infrastructure companies not decide who can and can't be on the Internet. I think it's imperative we solve this legally by pursuing a proper takedown of Kiwifarms, not by trying to encourage DDoSes to deal with it and then getting upset a company which prevents DDoS attacks prevented DDoS attacks.
I'm not trying to encourage ddos, I'm saying only that Cloudflare doesn't need to protect them from ddos. You might argue that those things are a distinction without a difference, but I would disagree.
Imo, kiwi farms will be the target of ddos no matter what, that's table stakes. So to me, the only thing I see is "is Cloudflare stepping in to help kiwi farms (at their own expense) or not".
Cloudflare isn't "stepping in". Anyone can sign up for Cloudflare. So you're asking Cloudflare to explicitly step in and strip protection from a particular website against their policies of basically non-interference, presumably to enable a DDoS attack to succeed.
There's a discussion that could be had about whether it's appropriate for ISPs to block sites that are strongly associated with terrorism.
I don't think that discussion can reasonably happen on this forum, but I think there are interesting philosophical positions that are valid that we should put against one another.
I can see no reason why the owner of kiwi farms would want to believe that kiwi farms wasn't directly responsible for suicides (and terrorism via swatting). /s
It's really not that tricky. Few sites are peers of 8chan, kiwi farms, and the daily Stormer. When you become their peer, you have a serious discussion about whether you want them as customers with several people in the company, and you can choose "no".
They can absolutely drop kiwi farms and still be in the clear, ethically. It's not like kiwi farms is even remotely close to some sort of slippery slope. It's the goddamn burning trash pit on a FOB of internet sites.
Kiwi Farms has killed and swatted people and had resulted in many direct threats of violence to individuals. It's not really a slippery slope at all. All three sites are way, way beyond the pale.
Calling it harassment is like calling the moon a "space rock" - technically true I guess, but missing the magnitude.
As someone who fears and despises Kiwi Farms, I would be dishonest if I didn't recognize the slippery slope certainty that the bar of acceptability would decrease over the next few years.
You realize the fallacy here, right? Terminating commercial agreements with three origins of stochastic terrorism is not some ratchet towards new speak. It's just three cases where Cloudflare decided that sheltering terrorism wasn't in their best interest.
stochastic terrorism is new speak itself, if redefining inaction to be action, is it redefining silence to be violence, it transitioning from a society focuses on first party liability (i.e am i only responsible for my own actions not the actions of others) to a collectivist mentality of not only am I responsible for my own actions but for the actions of everyone connected to me
It's not new speak. It's a more accurate set of words to describe what we used to call "lone wolves". Stochastic means random, statistically measurable but not predictable.
The term "stochastic terrorism" means terror attacks like school shootings, swattings, and driving trucks into protestors that happen with a certain statistical likelihood, but whose individual events cannot be predicted.
The phrase is the result of a slippery slope on the definition of "terrorism", which once referred to guerrilla groups driven by a religious or political ideology, to violent individuals lacking any ideology at all.
But the slippery slope I had in mind, however, was that once Cloudflare submits to the pressure of Keffals against this odious site, that precedent will be set, and then another pressure group will emerge targeting a slightly less odious site, etc.
Citation. On the swatting I hope we are not believing MTG now.. that would be doubley ironic
Also there is a big difference between actions of people that also happen to be members of a website and activity taking place on the website. I abhor third party liability
In the case os 8chan and daily stormer they were banned for actions and content on the site. Not for actions of people that may be affiliated with the site as anonymous users
So there, three different citations that, themselves link out to other news and reputable primary sources showing the site, including the owner of the site, are involved in stochastic terrorism and, quote, "the exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement".
>>The site posted the video and manifesto of the Christchurch shooting.
Ok, and? I 100% disagree with the active censorship around current events we see every day, from police shootings to terrorism people should be forced to confront the raw reality of the world not a candy coated version put through the filters of main stream media.
>So there, three different citations that,
No those are claims that do not really have a fact based narrative behind them, further even if the claims are taken at face value you are blaming the site for actions of people off the site that may be members, 3d party liability.
Going back to the 8Chan, and Daily Stormer they were banned for illegal content ON THE SITE, not because members of the site did things off that site.
Posting mean or even offensive things on a website should never be a bannable event, and to the extent people are taking actions offsite, or offline to the point of direct harassment, swatting etc those INDIVIDUALS should be criminally prosecuted for their own actions
Posting video of the Christchurch massacre is illegal.
And if you don't think the London police department didn't put out a fact based narrative about three swatting, you are straight up unwilling to engage in any sort of reasoned discussion, and are appealing purely to your emotional attachments to your ideals.
>>Posting video of the Christchurch massacre is illegal.
Not in the US it is not.
>>if you don't think the London police department didn't put out a fact based narrative about three swatting,
Nothing in the London story has any comments from the police dept at all, it is all third party accounts by the target of the swatting who they claim with out evidence that it was a member of Kiwi Farms.
Even if that is true i bet that same person has a Twitter account, Facebook account, Reddit account, Amazon Account, and probably accounts at several other sites. Are we going to ban every site that a person commits a swatting has a membership at? or just the site that are small and do not align with your personal politics?
>appealing purely to your emotional attachments to your ideals
There is a lot of appeals to emotions when it comes to this story, I am not one of them, I have a firm principle stand in support for Free Speech to include speech that people find offensive or even "harmful" or "hateful".
First I am using your links alone, I am not "looking into things" you make the claims it is up to you to provide the sources to back them. in addition to free speech I am big proponent of another concept I bet you oppose, innocent until proven guilty, if you are going to make the claim a site should be scrubbed from the planet it is upon you to convince others of that, not just make the statement. I am #ShowMetheEvidence not #BelieveAllClaims
Second I am not disputing a swatting occurred, I am disputing that the swatting was a direct result of the ownership of Kiwi Farms or supported by the Ownership (or even the majority of the members) of the site.
Nowhere in any of your sources to the Police attribute the swatting to Kiwi Farms
Only six weeks of paid parental leave?
I would absolutely be willing to pay more for AWS if I knew that amount was going to treating the poor folks who built it all better.