EDIT: I don't care about downvotes, but if you are going to do it at least leave a comment of why you think I am wrong.
I look forward to the national election where a politician stops what they're doing to complain every single time someone doesn't vote for them, and interrupt what's happening to demand an explanation.
That isn't how voting works.
"cost a ton more than you realize" - unless you look at the prices for the contract you're agreeing to? Y'know, like you do?
"Should have" - telling someone what their company should have done, without even knowing what their company /is/, let alone what they were trying to achieve and what constraints they had on their available options. Assuming or implying that the cheaper thing is always the more correct thing and no other factors can change that.
I don't care about the upvotes either. I care about why somebody thinks one way or the other.
Maybe I will agree, or disagree. Maybe I will learn something. But simply downvoting because you don't agree leaves no new information for me or anybody else reading to learn something.
I could be horribly wrong. And the process of being told why somebody thinks I am wrong might inlighten somebody else even if I hold to my initial view.
That being said, the voting system AFAIK on HN is more about being relevant to the topic, and less about agreeing. Although in practice upvotes tend to be more about agreeing and down votes more about being off topic or illrevent.
Not everybody can downvote, so when somebody does it means they have been around long enough to gain enough magical internet points to do so. So they might have some real insight that could help a OP or inlighten others. Along with making a good conversation even if no agreement is made at the end.
> I look forward to the national election where a politician stops what they're doing to complain every single time someone doesn't vote for them, and interrupt what's happening to demand an explanation.
Nobody is a politician here, what does that have to do with anything? This entire site was designed to talk about things, so I am hardly interrupting "what's happening"
> "cost a ton more than you realize" - unless you look at the prices for the contract you're agreeing to? Y'know, like you do?
AWS has public pricing, I can compare them to other publicly priced places. I don't need a contract that simply don't exist in most cases.
> "Should have" - telling someone what their company should have done, without even knowing what their company /is/, let alone what they were trying to achieve and what constraints they had on their available options. Assuming or implying that the cheaper thing is always the more correct thing and no other factors can change that.
I can compare server for server , compute for compute, and all the above. I don't really need to know what our anybody else is doing with a system to understand the raw resources you can get from the services offered and compare them based off that.
Not everybody can downvote, so when somebody does it means they have been around long enough
And long enough to know that they can write a reply if they want to write a reply, without being prompted.
Nobody is a politician here, what does that have to do with anything? This entire site was designed to talk about things, so I am hardly interrupting "what's happening"
It's illustrative because politicians are the main thing people deal with when 'voting' for something, and the scale of political votes draws attention to the problem. Imagine HN if every comment that got downvoted had a line asking for an explanation - that would be almost every single comment - totally interrupting the flow of the comment threads. Imagine if political votes with millions of voters were stopped by someone demanding an explanation for one or two "down"votes. It would be unworkable. Voting is an aggregate, noisy, large-scale summary. And now this really is dragging it off-topic talking about voting instead, and entreaties to "explain your votes" to people who could have done that if they wanted to, always will tend towards "that's not downvote-worthy", "yes it is", "no it isn't".
AWS has public pricing, I can compare them to other publicly priced places.
Right. So why are you telling other people they are spending "more than they realize"? Either they didn't bother reading the prices, or they don't understand the prices - where's any evidence for either of those? How is it any more than an insult about their inability to understand the public pricing before signing up?
"I can compare server for server , compute for compute, and all the above. I don't really need to know what our anybody else is doing with a system to understand the raw resources you can get from the services offered and compare them based off that."
Indeed you can. What you can't do - or what I disagree with - is you saying "I can get cheaper compute resources here, /so/ that's what your company /should/ have done". It doesn't matter what you started with, who you employ, what skills they have, what constraints you had on timescale or rewriting or redesigning, what your management or investors would support, what discounts you could get, what your future plans are, none of those things matter, only a rudimentary price-per-ghz is enough to tell you that you did the wrong thing and say I know better.
I look forward to the national election where a politician stops what they're doing to complain every single time someone doesn't vote for them, and interrupt what's happening to demand an explanation.
That isn't how voting works.
"cost a ton more than you realize" - unless you look at the prices for the contract you're agreeing to? Y'know, like you do?
"Should have" - telling someone what their company should have done, without even knowing what their company /is/, let alone what they were trying to achieve and what constraints they had on their available options. Assuming or implying that the cheaper thing is always the more correct thing and no other factors can change that.