I had to increase our quota of layer 7 load balancer backends recently on GCP, submitted the request and the quota was increased within minutes. YMMV though, I guess?
For Firebase it's actually not awful. We have 3 Firebase projects each with their caps raised to 100k concurrent connections, and it was a decent experience. Always the same person handling my support case etcetera, not too bad.
Are you saying that in today's politically correct world, HN should rank and give equal front page time to every topic relating to a minority? And also implying subtly that the predominantly male audience of HN prefer prostitution stories over discussion of minority's issues?
No. What I am saying is that I don't fully understand the logic that dictates that while both articles I pointed to discuss women's autonomy and the right to decide how use their reproductive organs, only one issue relating to that is worth talking about in great detail and that is the one that discusses the legislating of vaginas in the vein of other topics like income inequality, homelessness, etc.
I think that's the source of my confusion. I've generally accepted that women's issues are uninteresting to this audience unless it's about a startup disrupting some issue and that's ok. I'm more curious why this particular aspect of this particular issue is so interesting and worth discussing.
Say we legalize prostitution in the United States. What if a sex worker gets pregnant? Does the client have any obligation to support that child? Can the client sue for false advertising of an implied reproduction-free sex organ?
Laws governing social issues are messy and interesting but not technical. My point is it's a frivolous distinction to separate motherhood and women's rights from sex work because at the end of the day they are the same issue.
To me it seems that it's not about the upvotes per se but about the flagging and the perception that prostitution is an appropriate topic for HN but motherhood isn't.
The topic that you refer to is discussed frequently here and is a well worn path.
I think the combination of experiments in deregulation, a departure from norms in a historically socially conservative place like New England, and pruient curiosity probably attracted more reaction to this particular story.
People remain the same people and companies remain the same companies.
It's in microsofts DNA to build stuff that captures and watches and monitors and logs.
Just because they've started to be more open, won't change the fundamental company attitude and approach to doing things.
Microsoft will simply be bringing more "Microsoftiness" to the open source world. Get used to it, there's more coming cause that's the way they build software.
I would suggest that it is time to rethink some of those outdated assumptions that tools won't spy on you. Microsoft have arrived at the open source party, so open source isn't the same any more, just accept that the world has changed and now it's entirely possible that your open source is logging and watching.
