+1 to this, my first impression before I read this comment was wondering about the legally of using these components.

I've been interested on dipping my toes in Solid for a while, but I've heard there's a 2.0 coming soon and I don't want to bother learning Solid in detail if there's going to be a lot of breaking changes soon.

Does anyone know the status of 2.0?

Looks like its still in the discussion phase, did not see a timeline but also did not read super close. Did learn about the tanstack-router which I had never heard of, so that was worth looking this up right there ;)

https://github.com/solidjs/solid/discussions/2425

I don't follow - where I am, peak demand seems to be in the summer during the day when everyone has air conditioning on.

Sure, but everyone else with solar panels will produce more than they consume at the same time as you.

Good. Then you can live off grid actually! "Using the grid as a battery" is the unsustainable part.

That is not at all what I said. Thanks for the snark, though!

The think that was the point, it's unimaginable that something like that could only cost 30k in the US.

I found the article very difficult to understand. Can someone with an understanding of the issues help explain what's going on?

Is the idea that Microsoft provides licenses for Azure VMs running Windows free of charge, whereas AWS and GCP need to pay for licenses to run Windows VMs?

Windows Server (not the capitalization of Server) is an operating system, not just installing desktop Windows on a server. From the first few paragraphs it says the license cost for that OS is a fraction of the retail price if you're on Azure. I would assume this extends to every VM, or if you can rent an entire machine and it's run bare metal, or any configuration I don't know about (I'm not an experienced cloud person).

Thank you for the response. The part I don't under is what is different about Azure and AWS in this case?

Is Azure providing discounting pricing on Windows Server licenses? Or is it that Azure directly provides Windows Server machines where the license cost is amortized in some way, whereas AWS doesn't have permission to do the same and the license cost is pushed to the client?

That's the extent of my understanding of the article but keep in mind Microsoft, maker and direct distributor of Windows Server, also fully owns and operates Azure. So, I believe it's the first option, it's a direct discount. They could even give it away for free. Or pay you to use it. It's their product, they can charge whatever they want. AWS is Amazon (Web Services) and is a competitor to Azure. Microsoft has no incentive to have people who pay Amazon for servers instead of Microsoft to get cheaper software.

Your second option is actually a continuation in a way of the first. Likely the marketers did the math on what they need to charge to keep Server afloat. Then, when Azure came in, they did more math to work out the minimum amount they could tolerate where the hosting fees can make up the difference. It's actually a very smart move and makes perfect sense. Like cheap printers expensive ink. Make the upfront (OS license) low, recurring (server hosting) high. Seen across all industries since the dawn of time.

My guess is that people aren't willingly choosing to run Windows and complaining it's expensive on AWS, but rather are needing to support software that can only run in Windows Server (I think outlook exchange servers are like this?), and feel like they'd rather be on AWS instead of Azure if not for the cost.

But commuter rail is pretty different, right? The point of discussion was more around the restrictions of intercity.

On the mortgage and tax bill specifically, sure there is no impact.

But I (an American) pay for some European services in Euros, meaning those got 10% more expensive. I understand this might be the intended effect, but it's not good for me.

>But I (an American) pay for some European services in Euros, meaning those got 10% more expensive.

European services would be the least of issues. The main issue would be the tons of foreign imported food, cars, products, clothes, gadgets, and so on - including tons of component parts for "american" products (not to mention materials and tooling to make even the increasingly rarer "100% made in US" products).

Wouldn't that be their problem?

Where else are they going to sell all that stuff given there isn't an untapped source of demand to absorb it (or that demand would already be serviced).

So what you have is a production glut, and nowhere to shift it to. Which usually causes a price collapse and production collapse.

Which then causes unemployment in the source nation and interest rate cuts...

>Wouldn't that be their problem?

Not as much, as they can route around the issue, selling elsewhere. The import (or things "made in USA" but depending on imports) represents like X% of US good consumption, but each players' US exports represents a much smaller (and falling) share of their total exports.

The world is much wider in 2025 than it was in the 1980s or even in 2000 or 2010. 2025 United States's Share of Global GDP: 12.7% (project to fall to 11.x in the next 5 years). It was around 40% in 1960s, and 25-30% in 1990. US represents in average 20% of China's exports across various categories. The max % seen is about 25% for consumer electronics segment.

The rest is cope.

But that’s because you decided to take on currency risk without hedging or having a matched foreign income stream.

That’s not what anybody with scale will have done.

And now you have to reevaluate the cost of that service relative to the alternatives - including letting them know they need to take fewer Euros to retain your custom vs the competitive alternatives.

Customers are hard to come by. Are they prepared to let you go?

You're just shifting the goalposts here.

I will still stick with them because they're better value than the American alternatives, but that's beside the point.

You were arguing that the same number of dollars will get me the same number of goods and services, which is not true.

"You were arguing that the same number of dollars will get me the same number of goods and services, which is not true."

In aggregate within a rational competitive framework.

It is true for those that are rational and subject to competition.

Where else are they going to sell their stuff? Why would you agree to pay more?

Your behaviour will change, as will everybody elses - and you're the customer. So you go back to them and say no I won't pay any more. Haggle. Are they going to turn you away?

Why is you agreeing to pay more more important than the other person who decides it is too much and cancels the service?

Changing the goalposts is assuming you, and everybody else, are always a price taker, passively accepting what you are given. That's describing a monopoly/oligopoly scenario.

I'm sure that isn't the case.

This is someone's personal blog, and it seems like it wasn't posted by the person that owns the blog. Have the decency to just ignore and move on next time.

I say it as a person who had to get over it myself at some point. You will never win with colleagues who are all into politics and desperate to hold and advance their position. Let them have it, hopefully they'll tear off each other heads.

In my first reading your original reply sounded rude. After reading this, it sounds you are relating with the author and airing your frustration from a similar experience.

I'm off to do some coding with natural language.

But this would only converge if you assume the fees will stay fixed or at least grow more slowly than the discount rate.

The crazy thing is when that was first posted to HN, the salary was 50% lower.

Shocking that no one wanted to work there.