Also surprised. My yardstick was this post which showed SQLite beating Postgres in a Django app. Benchmarking is hard, and the author said the Postgres results were not tuned to the same degree as SQLite, so buyer beware.
https://blog.pecar.me/django-sqlite-benchmark
Does that mean that there is some smoke and mirrors when, eg Taylor Swift, says they sold out the concert in minutes? Or are the mega acts truly that high demand?
You can get the seats into "baskets" (reserved) in minutes. In my experience they will not sell out for some time as they usually keep dropping back into inventory. "Sold Out" is a matter of opinion. There are usually lots of single seats left sometimes for weeks or months. The promoter decides when to label the event as "sold out".
Statistics are showing that the total immigrant population is down by over a million since the start of the year. If you have the ability to leave, why put up with this nonsense?
My paranoia goes against this idea. How sure are you that the remote management is hardened? Assuming that disabling external control is actually effective, that seems like it removes most practical exploits one would encounter. A network configuration for a non technical person should be so simple it does not require regular maintenance.
Seemingly every year there is yet another Cisco vulnerability because of hard coded passwords. One as recently as July 2025. The entire network industry seems to YOLO the code running the world.
Certainly seems absurd to think that xz was the only target Jia Tan had been pursuing for years. Surely there were parallels initiatives to exploit other projects in the security chain.
Is that because they have fewer model numbers? If you look at fleet sales, does that placement still hold? Something like Toyota might have dozens of different similar products, diluting their rank ordering.
Is $0.55/GB not enough reason to avoid them? I guess not if your business is making more than that - bandwidth expense for a shopping site shouldn't be a problem when the customers are spending $100 for every 0.1GB - but that price should realistically be closer to $0.01/GB or even $0.002/GB. Sounds like they're forwarding you AWS's extremely excessive bandwidth pricing.
Where did you read that? The pricing page says 10 credits per GB, and extra credits can be purchased at $10 per 1500 credit. So it's more like $0.067/GB.
Yes, that's one scandal, from one person. It has nothing to do with Vinay Prasad, certainly nothing to do with the CDC, and whatever you think of the administration, connecting this event to "everything else" is political hackery.
How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN dry, but it's not New York Post hackery either.
It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it.
> Prasad was ousted
No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.
>> Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
Touché. I shouldn't have said "ad hominem attacks", because, while these arguments are certainly specious, and completely unrelated to the subject of the article, they're not strictly ad hominem.
I agree with your comment that my criticism is (and was) biased reporting.
> I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I'm even willing to admit that water might be wet, but not when someone is standing in a swimming pool splashing it around.
What about the nearly everyone else in the administration that is also a blatantly corrupt, unqualified, and incompetent bootlicker, many of which are even self described Nazis?
I'm a scientist that works closely with the federal government granting agencies that fund my research. People I had interacted with were extremely competent and professional for decades under both Republicans and Democrats, and most of them have been purged and replaced with completely unqualified loyalists. This is unprecedented and a marked departure from the past.
I am at NIH so same… and while everything seems unprecendented these days it is really not. elections have consequences and there isn’t more proof than 2024. but sun will rise in the morning, we’ll vote in 2026 and 2028 and those elections will also have (hopefully different) consequences…
reply