Where are you seeing orders of magnitude lower R2 bills? The storage price for S3 is $0.023 per GB, and the price for CF is $0.015 per GB. The operation pricing is even more similar - S3 is $5/million writes and $0.40/million reads, while Cloudflare is $4.50/million writes and $0.36/million reads.
R2’s writes are much slower than S3/GCS. It’s not a good fit unless your workload does many reads for each write (e.g. assets). Also it is notably not multi-region - it just picks a region automatically based on where you created the bucket from.
KV is super expensive - once you’re operating at non-trivial scale, reading another configuration value per-request in your worker starts to cost thousands per month. KV’s tail latencies are also surprisingly bad (I’ve seen over a minute), even for frequently read keys that should be easily cached.
It’s confusing, but those tunnels are not designed to be used directly - you’re supposed to use them as an origin in a DNS record or hit them from a worker. The IPv6 address you’re getting there is actually a private (ULA) address and will not be reachable via the internet. I’m not sure why they return it at all.
I won’t go to bat for anything near a full equivocation in contemporary politics, but it’s worth remembering antivax was heavily left-coded prior to Covid. I don’t think approximately anyone has actually good epistemology - just biases that fluctuate in how much they affect the real world. Left wing academics and outlets carrying water for people like Pol Pot in the late 20th century because they liked the idea of communism was a particularly bad one.
Even before COVID things were shifting - the antivax part of the left at that time were mostly only sort of aesthetically on the left. I think this Twitter exchange sums up my feelings about that counterargument: https://i.imgur.com/gNXJ6Wl.jpeg
Also, I think it's important to separate "left of center" and "leftist". Liberals and leftists are very different. "Progressive left-liberals" are fans of democracy and freedom and don't like bigotry and authoritarianism and Trump. "Leftists" are often fans of Lenin and Stalin and Pol Pot and killing groups of people who aren't ideologically aligned and instating one-party dictatorships and violently suppressing dissent. In leftist parlance, "leftist" = "Marxist" while "liberal" = "capitalist belonging to the moderate wing of fascism". In the US, politics is best described as not two but four factions: leftists, liberals, rightists, and neo-Nazis. Often neo-Nazis will form coalitions with the rightists to help achieve major goals; historically leftists would form coalitions with the liberals, but this seems to be occurring less and less.
Although leftists will insist the notion is absurd and anti-intellectual, horseshoe theory contains a lot of truth in it.
I wish the Greek one had a vibe at all, past putting the Rust logo on a gyro. Not even a curse word. You could have some fun with compiler errors and allusions to Oxi Day (which was two days ago).
I’ve done a significant amount of functional programming (including F#) and still reach for it sometimes, but I don’t think it provides substantial advantages for most use-cases. Local mutability is often clearer and more maintainable.
Also, category theorists think how excited people get about using the word monad but then most don’t learn any other similar patterns (except maybe functors) is super cringe. And I agree.
The things that are and aren’t considered essential enough to fund during a government shutdown are insane. Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
>Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid.
But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one). Who would argue that air traffic controllers shouldn’t be on that rarefied list?
> But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one).
I think thats due to the 27th Amendment [1]
> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
can't change (or stop) congressional pay until an election. guess it's a double-edged sword they can't give themselves in immediate pay raise, which I think was the point of ratification in 1992, but also can't cut their pay for failing to pass a budget.
But they’re not the only ones - apparently federal judges and some high-level political appointees are authorized to be paid during the shutdown. There’s some other mechanism for not rug-pulling federal paychecks.
Members of Congress must receive their pay, or the wealthy members could coordinate a shutdown that puts a significant financial pressure on the ones that rely on the congressional income, forcing them to cave to their demands.
Nothing happens to them. They can't be jailed for taking their PTO or sick leave, they are free to quit and there are not enough recruits in the pipeline to backfill them en masse. They could be put on a PIP, or fired for not showing up, or some other retaliatory and childish Trump action, but what is the government realistically going to do to fix this? Fire them for poor performance and make sure that a short term shortage becomes permanent? How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too?
On the other hand, if privatizing ATC is one of your goals, this is probably an effective way to force the issue.
(Current Airline Pilot here, definitely NOT in favor of privatizing ATC, but historically breaking things on purpose is the usual path politicians take to privatize)
Lots of things enshrined in statute (appropriations, prohibitions on impoundment, the name of the Department of Defense) have been disregarded in this year of our lord 2025.
Isn't the point of the government shutdown to be painful? It's a self-imposed failure condition, we could "optimize" it by removing the shutdown entirely.
Agreed, but the people who can legislate away shutdowns are the same ones who are currently using shutdowns as a political tool. There's no chance the current climate would do that.
Not if you want the economy to keep functioning. A lot of people doing real work (e.g. engineers flying out to fix medical devices) rely on air travel.
More people will die if the democrats capitulate, than those from malfunctioning medicals devices (or other reasons). I think you should do more research to understand the true cause and effect of the decisions in the current situation the U.S. finds itself in.
Capitulate? That sounds like rhetoric that somehow blames democrats for the state of this mess, but the truth is that there aren't enough democrats in congress for them to matter.
There's enough republicans in the House of Representatives for a vote amongst party lines to pass a budget there. That's not a problem for them
There's also enough republicans in the Senate to make it happen with a simple majority, which they posess. They surely know this.
Republicans can end the debate and vote on a bill -- including one that can temporarily get things moving -- any time they want to. They've got the numbers to do that.
It's not a theory. There's precedent. They've made that shift previously[1] in the not-so-distant past.
I’m not arguing they should capitulate - I’m arguing that we should fund ATC (and some other things) like we do Congress’s salaries. Or just authorize current spending levels by default if Congress shits the bed and simply not have this insane brinksmanship.
I happen to agree on the object level issue of maintaining the Medicaid funding. Thanks for talking down to me, though.
If an organ transplant means I have to live on the street, I’ll still take the transplant. It may not be nearly as accessible as it should be, but that doesn’t really mean we can blow it off as unnecessary.
I'm an American, and I'm absolutely certain at this point in my life that I will never be able to afford to pay for an organ transplant to benefit myself or anyone that I know, regardless of any compatibile combination of need and availability that may arise.
Therefore, it will never happen.
So yes: I'd like to suggest that organ transplants may be in fact be luxuries.
(If the question were instead worded as "Should organ transplants be considered luxuries?" then my answer would be written very differently.)
You may never be able to afford it, and your private insurance may not pay for it, but Medicare will without much fanfare. So if you’re planning on living past 65 it could happen.
There's a completely non-zero chance that I won't be able to afford to live to reach 65 and will be therefore will never gain the availability of the possibility of receiving an organ transplant.
For now, it remains a luxurious and unattainable concept to me.
Shutdowns used to not exist because Congress would authorize the President to spend at existing levels (but not the army, for reasons). This changed in the 1970s.
>Before 1917, the U.S. had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[25] The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[26][27]
>In 1953, the U.S. Treasury risked reaching the debt ceiling of $275 billion. Though President Eisenhower requested that Congress increase it on July 30, 1953, the Senate refused to act on it. As a result, the president asked federal agencies to reduce how much they spent, plus the Treasury Department used its cash balances with banks to stay under the debt ceiling. And, starting in November 1953, Treasury monetized close to $1 billion of gold left over in its vaults, which helped keep it from exceeding the $275 billion limit. During spring and summer 1954, the Senate and the executive branch negotiated on a debt ceiling increase, and a $6 billion one was passed on August 28, 1954.[28]
"Funding gaps have led to shutdowns since 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring it. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown. As of October 2025, 11 funding gaps have led to federal employees being furloughed."
That an AG just came up with this in the 1980s based on an interpretation of an 1884 law (Antideficiency Act) is fascinating, thanks for sharing this. I always assumed this was an explicit own-goal by Congress like the debt ceiling, but it seems like it’s an unintended side effect.
Debt ceiling is different than a shutdown. Debt ceiling negotiations are about raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already appropriated. The debt ceiling failure mode is "the US defaults on its debt."
Shutdowns happen when Congress hasn't appropriated new money by passing a budget. The shutdown failure mode is "there isn't enough money to pay for existing programs."
I don't doubt they're doing access journalism, but being part of the press pool wasn't really an element of that it the past. When's the last time a journalist got kicked out of the Pentagon? The access journalism is usually about what happens behind the scenes (e.g. embarrass someone in the Pentagon and you won't be getting off the record statements).
It's pretty hard to take someone who is pointing at journalists embedded in combat units as examples of a deficit of backbone in that industry seriously.
reply