AWS aggressively pursues high priced and years-long spending commitments with large customers, and they incentivize it with huge discounts for doing so.
And when AWS does this they intentionally incentivize these large customers to migrate existing workloads away from other cloud service providers as well, going so far as to offer assistance in doing so.
Way above my pay grade! I would never suggest or support making such agreements, but I also don’t want to be in a position where I’d even be asked, so I’d just sit back with a bowl of popcorn
That’s largely because one half of the elected officials are dedicated to defunding and deconstructing government organizations, so they can then point at those same organizations and go “look, the government doesn’t work! We should stop funding it!” The government is actually great at organizing a lot of things. But they’re all so engrained in society that you don’t even think about them as being organized by the government. Systems that just work, reliably, all the time.
The government’s job is stability and reliability, not being as efficient as possible. Where a corporation may only have one person doing a job, the government will have four or five. Those people aren’t bloat; They’re on the payroll because the government is expected to keep functioning during emergencies. People would lose their minds if the streets department (responsible for clearing downed trees out of public roads) shut down after a bad storm rolled through, just because a few government employees had a tree branch fall on their house. What if firefighters stopped working because a local wildfire burnt a few firefighters’ houses? What if the city water department shut down because three or four city employees’ water supply was affected? What if the health department shut down during a pandemic?
The people who work in government also live in the same areas they serve. Which means that they are affected by the same emergencies. The government needs enough redundancy to be able to continue functioning, even after those employees are affected by the same emergencies as the general public. If some emergency affects 75% of the public in a given area, then 75% of the local government employees are likely going to be affected. So if the government doesn’t have enough redundancy to be able to redistribute the work, people will see their government shutting down in the wake of the emergency. And to make matters even worse, during (and in the wake of) those emergencies, people look to the government for help. Which means that’s the most critical time for the government to continue functioning.
I say all of this because the same is true for the infrastructure that runs critical government systems. The government expands and implements things slowly by design, because everything critical has to go through multiple levels of design approval, and have multiple redundancies built in. If the government has updated a critical system, I can guarantee that new system has been in the works for the past two years at least. That process is designed to ensure everything works as intended. I wouldn’t want my city traffic lights managed by a private company, because they’d try to cut costs and avoid building in redundant systems.
I think co-ops are the way to go, but I can understand that someone “just” wanting to purchase the good/service might not see the difference between a co-op and corporation like Amazon.
I don’t think it’s a size issue really, but co-ops generally stay smaller in part due to how they are internally organized compared to a “median” corporation.
I also think that the government actually does a pretty good job at managing things; it’s just their failures are public. Private boondoggles might drive many people into bankruptcy, but they aren’t publicized any more than absolutely necessary.
Oil companies are private. Wars are started for oil.
Also government distrust and heavy focus on its inefficiencies is a tried and true right wing/authoritarian tactic. The public gobble it up because they dont take 6 seconds to actually think.
Do you literally hear yourself? You think large corporate and oligarchs run insurance, tech, etc., is a better route than a public option? 💀 Jeff Bezos, Musk, Thiel, and Ellison for everything?
Why do we place so much reliance on one mega company? This level of importance. It should be seized by the government.
It should be seized by the
governmentpeople and mercilessly decentralized.Agree
AWS aggressively pursues high priced and years-long spending commitments with large customers, and they incentivize it with huge discounts for doing so.
And when AWS does this they intentionally incentivize these large customers to migrate existing workloads away from other cloud service providers as well, going so far as to offer assistance in doing so.
And when they hit their end inevitable enshittification, what then?
That’s next quarter, after I’ve got my bonus for all these savings.
At that point you’re completely invested in their ecosystem and it’ll cost you triple to get out.
IbM has entered the chat
Way above my pay grade! I would never suggest or support making such agreements, but I also don’t want to be in a position where I’d even be asked, so I’d just sit back with a bowl of popcorn
God no, not the government!
They couldn’t organise a paper bag party
That’s largely because one half of the elected officials are dedicated to defunding and deconstructing government organizations, so they can then point at those same organizations and go “look, the government doesn’t work! We should stop funding it!” The government is actually great at organizing a lot of things. But they’re all so engrained in society that you don’t even think about them as being organized by the government. Systems that just work, reliably, all the time.
The government’s job is stability and reliability, not being as efficient as possible. Where a corporation may only have one person doing a job, the government will have four or five. Those people aren’t bloat; They’re on the payroll because the government is expected to keep functioning during emergencies. People would lose their minds if the streets department (responsible for clearing downed trees out of public roads) shut down after a bad storm rolled through, just because a few government employees had a tree branch fall on their house. What if firefighters stopped working because a local wildfire burnt a few firefighters’ houses? What if the city water department shut down because three or four city employees’ water supply was affected? What if the health department shut down during a pandemic?
The people who work in government also live in the same areas they serve. Which means that they are affected by the same emergencies. The government needs enough redundancy to be able to continue functioning, even after those employees are affected by the same emergencies as the general public. If some emergency affects 75% of the public in a given area, then 75% of the local government employees are likely going to be affected. So if the government doesn’t have enough redundancy to be able to redistribute the work, people will see their government shutting down in the wake of the emergency. And to make matters even worse, during (and in the wake of) those emergencies, people look to the government for help. Which means that’s the most critical time for the government to continue functioning.
I say all of this because the same is true for the infrastructure that runs critical government systems. The government expands and implements things slowly by design, because everything critical has to go through multiple levels of design approval, and have multiple redundancies built in. If the government has updated a critical system, I can guarantee that new system has been in the works for the past two years at least. That process is designed to ensure everything works as intended. I wouldn’t want my city traffic lights managed by a private company, because they’d try to cut costs and avoid building in redundant systems.
Large corporations and oligarchs are better? I’ll take the government. At least we can vote on them.
I think co-ops are the way to go, but I can understand that someone “just” wanting to purchase the good/service might not see the difference between a co-op and corporation like Amazon.
I don’t think it’s a size issue really, but co-ops generally stay smaller in part due to how they are internally organized compared to a “median” corporation.
I also think that the government actually does a pretty good job at managing things; it’s just their failures are public. Private boondoggles might drive many people into bankruptcy, but they aren’t publicized any more than absolutely necessary.
It would be a more meaningful discussion if the government wasn’t controlled so much by large corporations and oligarchs.
Government is also the entity that will be prosecuting/persecuting you when they don’t like what you have to say.
Sorry but this is a ridiculous argument. What entity has dropped nukes on an entire population? Who is the current president of the US? Insane take.
What are you actually arguing with the president thing? I literally don’t understand how that’s supposed to support your point.
An idiot bought by corporations.
Oil companies are private. Wars are started for oil.
Also government distrust and heavy focus on its inefficiencies is a tried and true right wing/authoritarian tactic. The public gobble it up because they dont take 6 seconds to actually think.
Do you literally hear yourself? You think large corporate and oligarchs run insurance, tech, etc., is a better route than a public option? 💀 Jeff Bezos, Musk, Thiel, and Ellison for everything?
When was the last time you heard about a large government computer outage? (I don’t count the VA because that’s broken on purpose.)
CrowdStrike, but that hit private companies too.
Launch of ACA markets? But that seemed more like the company paid to make it under sized it or just did shit code.
Which goes back to somethings shouldn’t be done for profit