Maybe it has to do with the US having double the per capita carbon footprint, and double the cumulative total amount of CO2 of China, and many multiples of India:
There's far more room for improvement when per capita is high than there is when per capita is low.
And the climate certainly does care about cumulative CO2.
Would have, could have, should have. But didn't. Trying to hold others accountable without getting one's own house in order just comes off as the blatant hypocrisy it actually is. Until we do better ourselves, we are in no position to call others out.
Equinix doesn't own many of the buildings they have facilities in. Aside from Dallas Infomart, I don't really know of any where they do, but I do know many buildings they have facilities in that they don't own. Digital Realty much more commonly owns carrier hotel buildings.
Pretty much any colo or dedicated/bare metal provider. $0.07 to $0.12 per Mb is the going rate for most carriers at any appreciable volume, and even the higher end carriers are less than 3x that.
To be fair, big tech despite their massive volume pay much higher rates than small networks because the carriers charge them enough to fully cover their costs to build out their networKs, while they make all their profits from selling their excess capacity to the little guys for pennies on the dollar.
At $0.07/MB, your talking over $70K to transfer a TB. Am I missing something here? Because I'd say $70k is quite a bit more than "a couple of dollars" the GP mentions. (No, I dont deal with cloud pricing at all, so I'm a little perplexed here)
Network at the wholesale level is always measured in Mbps using 95th percentile, not in data transferred (average sustained, equivalent to 50th percentile because we're talking about 5 minute samples of interface counters over the course of a month). Note I used a small b in Mb. Depending on the variability of traffic patterns, that usually works out to be on average ~200GB* transferred per Mbps of 95th percentile over a period of a month. Meaning a TB would work out to about $0.35.
*A long, long time ago, I looked at about 1000 co-location customers' MRTG stats and compared their monthly 95th percentile Mbps to their average sustained data transfer in GB, and something like 90% of them were between 150GB-250GB per Mb and 98% of them were between 180GB-220GB. Many people assume 324GB which would require their traffic to be perfectly flatlined throughout the month, which obviously rarely ever happens.
I think the point he was trying to make is that big tech can use privacy regulations to keep out new competitors, rather than encourage them, as compliance with privacy regulations can create a higher barrier to entry
How? You just need to not save user data outside of that strictly required for providing your service and you easily comply even with the most stringent GDPR directives. To be honest caring about privacy lowers a lot your barrier to entry, unless you whole business is based around tracking ads or reselling of data to shady third parties.
Or collecting samples of user-provided data to build machine learning systems, which is how Google bootstrapped its search, spam filter, and voice recognition technologies.
> With sadness, StreetLend was shut down in April 2018, after five years of operation.
> Unfortunately the European Union's new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), introduced on 25th May 2018, creates uncertainty and risk that are impossible to justify for small non-profit websites.
That is an example of someone who chose to shut down due to perceived risk. There is no argument on the linked page that that perception of the risk of running a free non-profit website under the GDPR is based in reality. In particular, the does not seem to have been any GDPR enforcement against said site.
It looks more like someone who does not like the GDPR (because it affects them in some other way, because they are mislead, out of principle or who knows what reason) who then chose to sacrifice their pet project to make a statement.
I think financially literate people in Canada don't pay anywhere near $200. I've always paid around $50/mo for the last 20 years, without ever going out of my way to shop for promotions, and have been able to have all the data usage I could reasonably use (previously excluded watching videos when not on Wi-Fi, but the most recent plan of a few years has enough data that I no longer need to), plus extra bells and whistles like free roaming in the US. This is with both a corporate plan with Bell the last 6-7 years, and a regular single individual plan with Rogers all the years before that, so wasn't even with a lower cost provider.
There are huge promotions multiple times a year because the competition is fierce between the top providers. When long-term contracts that subsidized phones were still around up to a few years ago, the buyouts to switch providers were so aggressive that you could end up with an extra few hundred dollars in your pocket on top of a new phone every 2 years when switching providers, or staying with the same provider and getting the loyalty/retention department to match offers. Yes, there may be better deals to be found down south sometimes, but not by enough of a margin to deal with cross-border banking, currency conversion, and much worse consumer protection laws for most people.
Yes, additional competition might potentially help drive prices down, but the low ROI on the huge amount of infrastructure required for such a small population might also result in worse economies of scale for all players resulting in the need to cut corners on coverage or service quality to remain competitive.
Also, I'm not convinced coverage is better down south. Anecdotally, I seem to hit way more deadspots driving down I5 through Washington and Oregon than I do on Highway 1 across BC to Alberta despite having much larger swathes of populated areas. I'm also shocked everytime I go to New York and get zero cell signal in every subway station including near Wall Street, when every underground transit station in Vancouver has coverage (admittedly Toronto does not have this though).
I have one question, have the prices gone up or down over the past decade? I will admit I'm not familiar with the market there for about as long for sure.
Last time I had a bill in my name in Canada it was pretty pricey to get any reasonable amount of international (Not just USA) roaming plans with reasonable amounts of data, like around 200 for sure.
(Disclaimer) As a bare metal provider, I hope more people become aware what I've been saying for years: cloud is great for scaling down, but not that great for scaling up. If you want to have lots of VM's that don't warrant their own hardware that you can conveniently turn up and down, then cloud is fantastic. If you have a big application that needs to scale, you can get further vertically with bare metal, and if you need to scale horizontally, you need to optimize better higher up in the stack anyway, and the much lower cost for equivalent resources (without even taking any virtualization performance hit into account), more flexibility and thus more/better fitted performance of bare metal should have the clear advantage.
Sorry, the website is pretty outdated. We're almost exclusively rolling out AMD EPYC3's these days, and we'd price any of those older configurations much lower than what the website lists them at. Nobody, other than spammers, ever orders through our website (although to be fair, our website may be to blame for that also). We get all of our business through word of mouth, and keep busy enough on that alone, so the website hasn't been a priority.
You really ought to take your price lists down if they're that out of date. As it stands, they're probably driving some potential customers away -- even ones who heard of you through word of mouth, but decided to do a bit of research before proceeding.
Look at Hetzner / OVH. I got incredibly good deals from them on dedicated servers. I think I am paying around $150 Canadian for AMD 16 cores, 128GB ECC RAM, do not remember storage.
Updated: I also run some things right from my home office since I have symmetric 1Gbps fiber. For that I paid around $4000 Cdn for off lease 20 core 3.4GHz 512GB RAM server from HP
From our experience, if we price too low we get people who expect the world for bottom dollar. $199 is more the minimum price point at which we’re generally willing to take someone on a customer, than a reflection of the price of a base configuration server. Anyone e-mailing us for a quote, if they seem like they’re on the up and up and we like what they're about, we will usually give a pretty good discount. Most business nowadays are for people ordering several servers at a time and they will always request a custom quotation anyhow, and we're pretty aggressive with larger volume orders.
Before there was a "cloud" in the early 2000s, we were paying anywhere from $100 (cheap, low spec machines) to $199 (new hardware, more ram, faster disks) per month for rented bare metal from places like Servermatrix, Softlayer, etc.
The going rate also typically included anywhere from 1TB to 2TB of egress, as well.
Another way of looking at it for the low end: How many things do you run on a single bare metal host versus an equivalent amount of discrete "services"?
> what I've been saying for years: cloud is great for scaling down, but not that great for scaling up.
Yes and no. The cloud isn’t cheap at running any lift and shift type project. Where the cloud comes into its own is serverless and SaaS. If you have an application that’s a typical VM farm and you want to host it in the cloud, then you should at least first pause and identify how, if at all, your application can be re-architected to be more “cloudy”. Not doing this is usually the first mistake people make when deploying to the cloud.
No matter what, SK Telecom is going to be eyeball (ingress) heavy and no amount of engineering of Netflix traffic is going to help with that, as it's all inbound anyway. Not that Netflix's upstreams like Level3 or Telia would be peering with SK Telecom anyway. Reducing the amount of Netflix traffic can only help.
Traffic engineering does not just cover what. It also covers where. At the eyeball network level where is way more important than what as what is constant.
1) It's impractical to test everyone for antibodies. There's enough empirical data to suggest that immunity wanes over time for most people that it makes sense to just give everyone a 3rd, booster shot.
2) It was always expected that vaccine immunity would wane over time. Nobody (of any relevant repute) ever suggested otherwise.
3) I don't doubt that you had side effects from the vaccine. But there's a strong probability that the side effects of an actual infection would have been much, much worse for you. You may potentially have an undiagnosed health issue that could have potentially been a comorbodity in an actual infection.
1) It's quite worrying since having a high antibody count can imply an increased risk of side effects. This is why we don't give 2 shots to people that have already had covid in the last 6 months.
2) You've got to agree that 6-9 months is a pretty short window of immunity for a traditionnal vaccine. We may maybe rather call it "prophylaxy" then, just like the dewormer you put on your cat every 3 months.
3) Do you have a source? This could be a very interesting pro-vaccine point.
Why focus on China and India, when on a per capita basis they have a small fraction of the carbon footprint that we have in Canada and the US? When we can get our per capita carbon footprint down below theirs, then maybe we'll have a right to criticize their environmental policies. But in the meantime if we're being at all objective, trying to point a finger at them makes us look like absolute hypocrites.
I agree about the West's hypocrisy, but per-capita emissions is a red herring. Regardless of how many people live there, the Chinese government controls the most polluting economy in the history of civilization. The CCP is thus in the position to help more than any other entity in the world right now.
If you read the Great-grand parent comment, which I authored. I advocated for the US to lead by example to encourage other nations to drop their GHG emissions to zero.
Having China and India, being large producers of GHGs, reduce their emissions is necessary but not sufficient to stop further climate change.
Because removing Canada completely doesn't begin to solve the issue. You need to look at total pollution by country because decisions are made at the country level.
Not all servers are web facing or live in data centres. There are tons of small businesses that run servers in a backroom. Those are predominantly Windows.
right but that analysis isn't useful. If I used the same logic to determine a solution for hauling a large load by vehicle and looked at how most cubic meters of things are hauled, I'd probably be forced to conclude that a sedan trunk is the best option. However that's only due to the preponderance of sedans.
It's a very careful way to state the question to make it look like the numbers back what's clearly a wrong answer.
It puts the framing of "well I guess I'm using a sedan" and resituates the problem to solve all its shortcomings. It's a classic implicit framing propaganda technique.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-his....