It was a DNS issue with DynamoDB, the load balancer issue was a knock-on effect after the DNS issue was resolved. But the problem is it was a ~15 hour outage, and a big reason behind that was the fact that the load in that region is massive. Signal could very well have had their infrastructure in more than one availability zone but since the outage affected the entire region they are screwed.
You’re right that this can be somewhat mitigated by having infrastructure in multiple regions, but if they don’t, the reason is cost. Multi-region redundancy costs an arm and a leg. You can accomplish that same redundancy via Colo DCs for a fraction of the cost, and when you do fix the root issue, you won’t then have your load balancers fail on you because in addition to your own systems you have half the internet all trying to pass its backlog of traffic at once.
If an artist consents to the use of their song in a specific way, it’s not a matter of belief at all. It just is tacit approval. So when the government does this without consent, until the moment the artist responds, the implication is that the artist has approved it. Which isn’t as big a deal if a private entity does it, but it’s a much bigger deal when the federal government does it.
It’s plenty reliable. AWS is just somebody else’s datacenter.
Colo is more feasible, but who is going to travel to the various parts of the world to swap drives or whatever?
Most Colo DCs offer ad hoc remote hands, but that’s beside the point. What do you mean here by “Various parts of the world”? In Signal’s case even Amazon didn’t need anyone in “various parts of the world” because the Signal infra on AWS was evidently in exactly one part of the world.
If there's an outage, you're talking hours to days to get another server up, vs minutes for rented hosting.
You mean like the hours it took for Signal to recover on AWS, meanwhile it would have been minutes if it was their own infrastructure?
The current government strategy of illegal use of copyrighted materials, often with the full understanding that the artist/IP owners will not consent to it should really have a harsher punishment to it. The DHS social media pages in particular keep using songs without artist permission because they know it will be taken down but by that point it doesn’t matter and they just steal another song. Given that the use of these songs implies tacit approval from the artist, this should absolutely count as the rights of the artists to free speech are being infringed upon.
I can only speak to my local tri-state area but most people’s drivers licenses can’t be used to fly domestically. People that have their passports just use those to fly and don’t really bother to get the REAL ID
Isn't part of their mission that the reputation shouldn't matter?
Not at all, at least when it comes to their organization and its investments. Their donations to OSS are one thing, but FUTO controls the name and brand of their direct investments like GrayJay and Immich. This makes FUTO a brand and separating a brand from its reputation isn’t something that can be done. FUTO is a company and companies aren’t your friends. They can promise whatever they want, but they are accountable to what they do.
They themselves have put a huge emphasis on their reputation in terms of their OSS donations as well, often at the expense of transparency and the sovereignty of the projects they’re “supporting”, which is actually what the original post we’re commenting on is about. They were caught slipping donations to individual maintainers of projects and not the projects themselves in order to avoid project rules about institutional donors, and then they plastered the name and logo of these projects on their website without permission. They did this to improve their reputation and instill a sense of trust in the community. Doing so in such a shady, under the table way actively undermines trust.
FUTO is an investment company like any other, only with a mission statement of “Don’t worry, we’re one of the good ones, primarily due to INSERT BELIEFS”. Then they act in a way in flagrant contradiction of those beliefs.
Anybody who feels uneasy over this behavior is 100% justified. Anyone’s who’s lived through Apple’s “Monopoly busting underdog” or Google’s “free and open internet for all, don’t be evil” eras doubly so.
The problem isn’t that FUTO platforms an out and proud self proclaimed fascist in a vacuum.
The problem is the close association FUTO has with an out and proud self-proclaimed fascist while selling itself with a libertarian mission statement. Fascism and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies on the far opposite ends of the spectrum. The idea that this contradiction doesn’t hurt the reputability of the organization is absurd.
If you think I’m worried about the ethical purity of the founders of an investment firm, you are mistaken.
Can’t say I’m surprised but it’s such a shame. I’m guessing this ties inter their newly launched timeline feature. Maps was at least up to this point a better alternative to Google Maps.
The definition in this context is clearly referring to the political party, not your stance towards systems of government.