Another American family that also went to Russia is featured in the article:
“It was the promise of a country that would not promote the LGBT agenda. We liked the fact that LGBT is basically outlawed here in official ways,” Leo Hare, 62
They say their initial plan to rent an apartment in Moscow fell through just as they boarded the plane from Texas, and the family spent a bitterly cold winter caring for chickens, horses and rabbits on a farm 70 miles south of Moscow in exchange for free board. At one point, they even had to bring the goats and their newborns inside their cabin to keep the animals from dying.
They are literally living indoors with livestock to avoid LGBT references in popular culture they experienced in America.
Leo Hare thought their troubles were over when their landlord’s son offered a generous interest rate for investing their $50,000 nest egg in what he described as a car import business. But they only saw one payment before he stopped sending them money and refused to return their money, Leo Hare said.
Sometimes gullible people just broadcast that fact themselves.
I am the official spokesman of the UK, never heard of it
Oh man, you may need to turn in your Brit Card to the King. The term was likely born in Britain, and used as a central part of the UK's success in WWII.
The usage "crib" was adapted from a slang term referring to cheating (e.g., "I cribbed my answer from your test paper"). A "crib" originally was a literal or interlinear translation of a foreign-language text—usually a Latin or Greek text—that students might be assigned to translate from the original language. The term "crib" originated at Bletchley Park, the British World War II decryption operation.
And I still get downvotes when I tell Americans two No Kings protests in four months isn’t going to be enough.
Perhaps you're getting downvoted because thats a strawman argument you're creating? Is there anyone of any legitimacy saying two protests would be enough? Of course not, you know better. I can tell you thats why I downvoted you.
There’s a huge gulf between pub clowd and shitty on-prem.
We agree on this.
Redundant everything piped in. Redundant everything set up. We run VMs by terraform. Wheeeeee
For that customer of yours, is that a single datacenter or does is represent multiple datacenters separated by a large distance across a nation, or perhaps even across national borders?
Point is, posing shitty on-prem as the alternative to the clowd is moving the goalposts a bit.
I think ignoring that shitty on-prem represented a large part of IT infrastructure prior cloud providers is ignoring a critical point. Was it possible to have well-run enterprise IT data centers prior to cloud? Sure. Was everyone doing that? Absolutely not, I'd argue the majority had at least a certain level of jank in their infra and that that floor is raised with cloud providers. Just the basic facilities is enterprise grade irrespective of the server or app config.
That work is still being done by someone in a data centre. But all these jobs went from in-house positions to the centres.
The difference is scale. When in-house, the person responsible for managing the glycol loop is also responsible for the other CRACs, possibly the power rails, and likely the fire suppression. In a giant provider, each one of those is its own team with dozens or hundreds of people that specialize in only their area. They can spend 100% on their one area of responsibilty instead of having to wear multiple hats. The small the company, the more hats people have to wear, and the worse to overall result is because of being spread to thin.
We need to ditch cloud entirety and go in house again.
For many many companies that would be returning to the bad-old-days.
I don't miss getting an emergency page during the Thanksgiving meal because there's excessive temperature being reported in the in-house datacenter. Going into the office and finding the CRAC failed and its now 105 degree F. And you knew the CRAC preventive maintenance was overdue and management wouldn't approve the cost to get it serviced even though you've been asking for it for more than 6 months. You also know with this high temp event, you're going to have an increased rate of hard drive failures over the next year.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Are you some kind of lawyer? You seem to think that I can write a law on an online forum. Things like that usually take a lot of work to figure out the details.
I'm not, but I've got a brain and like to use it. I saw your post suggesting regulation (which I normally agree with) and then started thinking about how regulation would have to be written. I then came up with the questions I put in my post. I figured if you were suggesting a regulatory fix, you'd thought of these questions too and had some answers.
Imagine my disappointment when you just replied [paraphrased] "People against regulation suck".
The FCC has had media market size laws on the books for decades. I can imagine something similar to that but for the digital world since it is so important to the modern economy.
See? Thats more what I'm looking for! The FCC model has some possibilities, but shortcomings. While FCC does have global reach, as it is the body that regulates any communications satellite in space, the FCC angle still depends on the USA being the arbitrator of global law. With the current government in Washington, we can see why that may not be a good idea.
Okay, then. Describe the law that would fix this. This is your chance to write the bulletproof legislation.
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.
Well, now you can show them! Just describe your perfect regulation right here and tell us how it will be implemented worldwide.
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?
Do they refer to it as their Thousand-Year Reich or is that just its unofficial name?