A community for high quality news and discussion around technological advancements and changes
Things that fit:
Things that don't fit
The only solution for this is strong government regulation. Monopolies are the natural result from capitalism.
The final form of unregulated capitalism is a single company.
Like China.
China is a single company?
No, but capitalism can lead to the same effects as state controlled monopoly.
The only solution for this is strong government regulation. Monopolies are the natural result from capitalism.
Is this even the solution in this case? These are truly global companies which begs the obvious question: Which government?
Which single government is incorruptible? Two or more you say? All governments maybe? What happens when regulatory rules are dissimilar? Lowest common denominator then perhaps? Would the Taliban-led Afghan government be able to weigh in and block resources showing women working if that was their want?
Yes, that’s the solution.
There’s a reason why every rich piece of shit is 100% against government regulation. They want absolute power to exploit, pollute, abuse, bribe and every other anti-social activity we can imagine.
Do you have a solution?
I don't. Which is why I'm trying to discuss it here. I have formed a number of questions that I posted would have to be solved. Feel free to jump in and help solutioning with us.
The most practical solution is something similar to particular features of GDPR - where greater scale / marketshare increase the responsibilities the company has, like increased requirements to support competitors (API compatibility, infrastructure access, etc) and prohibition against anticompetitive behaviors.
I had thought about that possibility too. In this would be a "lowest common denominator" method. Meaning the most restrictive law, in all regions that the services serve, would have to be followed by the global service companies. If we're just talking about USA and EU regulations it can look potentially better, but do we just stop with those two regulatory bodies? What if China wants to have a say, and we can guess what some of their laws would impose?
The solution is to break up Amazon's monopoly. In addition to breaking up Amazon itself into smaller competing companies, a large government like the EU can insist that these private backbones interoperate such that you can use local providers without the overhead of dealing with 20 different interfaces
The solution is to break up Amazon’s monopoly. In addition to breaking up Amazon itself into smaller competing companies,
We already have smaller competing companies. If you read the article you see that Signal says that only a global company with its globally-integrated services can support the Signal application because of its requirements.
a large government like the EU can insist that these private backbones interoperate such that you can use local providers without the overhead of dealing with 20 different interfaces
I'm not quite sure where you're going here. Its not just a problem of different interfaces. The Signal app cites the need for global endpoints with low latency and a consistent platform for deployment of services including resiliency. You're not going to get that spreading your app over 20 different providers. Its even difficult for a single provider, which the most recent AWS outage proves.
Good point. Laws are useless. Case closed.
No they didn't. There are plenty of companies that run multi-regional services, outside of AWS. This is just an excuse for making poor choices.
There are plenty of companies that run multi-regional services, outside of AWS.
Mind listing some?
Some of these might have changed in the meantime, but the last I heard:
Hell, if you go to most hosting-service company websites, you'll find that they usually list some of their biggest customers in their marketing materials.
I think they meant AWS competitors, not companies that maintain multi-region configurations.
Shit, yeah I misread their comment. Was curious about the plenty I had never heard of. My bad.
I'm aware of a number of companies that are multi-cloud. Many are Azure/AWS. Others are Azure,AWS, and GCP all at the same time. One is Azure,IBM Cloud. More recently OCI (Oracle Cloud Infrastructure) has been making a push to be the second cloud provider a company uses, not trying to replace the first. I apologize that I cannot disclose company names.
I'll say that most of these I'm not seeing them become multi-cloud to have cross-cloud redundancy, but instead to take advantage of specific services in each cloud that is better than the other. Every now and then they'll configure and application or two for multi-cloud redundancy (which is quite complicated), but @nixus@anarchist.nexus is right that lots of big companies are running multi-cloud already and if Signal did want to set up cross-cloud functionality they certainly could to protect themselves from a single cloud provider outage like what occurred with AWS on Monday.
Suuuure, and they can only hire developers in the US because talent doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet.
Give me a break. Ilike the product but don't sell us this bullshit excuse. AWS is the most expensive cloud provider out there. There are now alternatives you can use, be it in Europe or Asia.
If you looked closer you'd see they're talking about scale, not functionality. Anybody can build the functionality, few others have infrastructure that will keep latency low for users across the planet.
And yes they could use many local providers, except that significantly increase engineering costs
Would it really increase engineering costs? Who knows what they are doing now. is everything running in containers on Fargate? Is it EKS? Is it a bunch of EC2 instances in one zone behind load balancers? Are they exclusively using CloudWatch? Do they have DataDog collecting logs everywhere?
Without specifics, I wouldn't immediately claim it's impossible to pick providers across the globe or find some kind of other solution that doesn't involve a high dependence on a single provider.
Unless all those local providers offer equivalent APIs / management interfaces and comparable hardware you're going to have to deal with a lot of middleware
I'm skeptical of this claim. Signal doesn't seem like it'd be very compute-heavy, doesn't seem like text and voice would be very network-heavy, and I don't think video is used very much. If us-east-1 going down took out most their services, it doesn't seem like they're leveraging AWSs multi-region features very well anyways. It wouldn't be too hard to just rent or co-locate hardware in multiple non-hyperscalar data-centers around the world, and run a multi-zone, highly available k8s cluster. Would probably be cheaper and more robust too. I don't have experience with multi-zone k8s, but I was the sole person responsible for deploying and maintaining a highly-available single-datacenter k8s cluster on rented hardware, and it wasn't even my primary job (was a full-stack engineer and team-lead), If I could do it, I don't think they'd need to try to hire world's top experts or anything. Coincidentally, the provider was UpCloud, which is a European company, and in 8 years of using them, I don't recall seeing a single node we had become unresponsive for more than 5 minutes, and I'm not even sure those times were on UpCloud's end.
It's routing heavy. That's latency sensitive and really needs distributed components when users are distributed. And it gets more complicated when you're using many different local providers
I love this woman and I believe everything she says
'No choice' like how they have no choice but to collect phone numbers. Have to keep the honey flowing from the pot after all.
(note: user has zero evidence)