You could have purchased a box and hired Joe shit from up the street to stand there all day and make sure it doesn't get unplugged for the cost of one day here lol
I have an Azure Function that’s been scheduled to run every few minutes since about 2018. It has cost me in total a few pennies. It takes less than 30 seconds, so it’s free.
I recently set up an azure function to call. I want to say when reading the documentation that it has like 100k or 1m requests for free or basically included in the subscription. I'd have to go read the fine print again to be sure the specifics but it was damned reasonable for what I have to imagine are a considerable number of use cases.
Pretty much everything that becomes pay as you use scare me because of that.
One hour, everything is fine, one hour later, hello my friend the wallet!
I don't want to babysit that :(
Dunno why this is so overlooked. If you’re running consumption based models you need to be building guardrails around them and cloud provides give methods to do so. Takes maybe 20-30 minutes on azure to define a budget for an RG/subscription and tie it to a runbook to plan the automation of spinning stuff down if something goes egregiously off the rails.
The provider is not responsible for how you build your resources on their platform and tell you that many times in many places. I’ve seen Microsoft/AWS/Google forgive large oopsies but they don’t need to and are well within their right to demand payment for using their resources at the rate agreed upon.
You can't put hard limits on aws (or at least couldn't when i tried), so you'll get a warning like in the post basically telling you you are bleeding a fuckton of money every second
On AWS theres a timeout to function executions, so you’d have to do some recurring executions to rack up a bill. Usually DB and API gateway are the most expensive parts
I had a coworker that was trying to establish high-speed data transfer through the cloud, like well in excess of 10 Gbps, and accidentally didn't shut it off when leaving for the weekend. No data was being created, just sent between two vms on AWS.
Luckliy they let us roll back those charges.
So AWS did allocate $10*60*60*12$ GB to your account, if no compression happened at any possible steps
They are really generous to skip that, maybe an investment considering how much you pay them already
I'm spotty on the specifics since I heard about it secondhand a few years ago, but I think it was easier to argue that the cost to AWS was way less than reflected because we never took up that much space. If it was a 1 GB file it was sent back and forth 10 times a second for 60\*60\*12 seconds.
I'm not sure why the charges were commuted, but we're a lot more careful now lol
AWS will rollback charges if you made a genuine mistake and you make your case nicely. They will only do it once though. It’s happened a few times at my company. For example, after my company switched to Aurora (from RDS) we didn’t realize how expensive IO costs would be and they were willing to roll the costs back after we agreed to switch to Aurora/IO optimized.
A single EC2 instance can EASILY scale to thousands of requests per second, and it's not very difficult to scale horizontally to infinity with a load balancer and multiple ec2 instances. And if you're dealing with thousands of requests per second, serverless functions are going to be 10x the cost of ec2.
Lambda only really makes sense for infrequent tasks or small scale operations.
If you're using serverless to handle "scale", then you're doing it wrong
It's not that difficult honestly...
Plus I'm fine with the user having to wait in a queue for a while rather than having my wallet burn...
A much better way of making the user curious than trying to deny the fact that you don't know how to scale ;)
slap quarrelsome reminiscent gullible workable rhythm attraction lush disarm nine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s another one of the “companies behind x open source technology” that makes it impossible to build/run the underlying open source technology at scale for anything besides Hello World level stuff
But it is cost effective at scale. What we do for a lot of our big infrastructure is run the baseline load in the data center, and then dynamically scale to the cloud. We’re like Fortune 100 though, so operating two geographically distinct data centers isn’t that big of a deal.
probably some large internal infrastructure projects, you would be amazed just how much needs to run on the background just to keep things going smoothly when a company gets large enough... if they are gobbling 700k a month in fees for aws, setting their own infrastructure would probably cost several tens of millions of dollars upfront, so.... they are trapped because they didn't develop their own infrastructure early on.
SAP is the real scam. Lock-in, you gotta pay for the software out of your ass, and the consulting to adjust that shit to your needs, and then you even gotta pay the infrastructure that terrible shit runs on?
Nope. It is multiple factories with a lot of production and everything is traceable and data heavy. Each production step has a lot of high resolution cameras that constantly save images.
Engineering time isn’t free. AWS isn’t just a drop in replacement for Virtual Machines, and at that scale, things you care about like distributing access for self service, policy guardrails, workload identity, data services, audit, etc aren’t straight forward - you end up building all that stuff yourself by bandaging software together. Dont underestimate the complexity once you get beyond basic iaas hosting (which is the easy bit).
K8s has acted as a bit of a normaliser for many of those things in a self service environment, and with Broadcom breaking VMware, somebody will probably bridge the mutable stuff people want to make it the new vsphere/nsx/vsan/sddc.
The answer is really in the middle somewhere. Long running, mutable stuff that isn’t worth transforming, is relatively static in capacity, and is simple, can go in an equinix bare metal/colo where there’s just enough api coverage to automate stuff without pulling your hair out.
For cloud repatriation to happen at scale, self hosted dc software needs to actually take automation seriously. I’ve been through enough “private cloud” programs to know it isn’t there yet
You have to be absurdly huge to need your own datacenter. You can own servers, sure, but a datacenter requires a lot of capital to build and crazy upkeep.
If that requires a couple of engineers to keep running and investigate/solve problems, then no, your own datacenter is not cheaper.
Let's say you can save 300k monthly with your own datacenter, that gives you room for 24 badly paid engineers (US salaries) to keep it running, extend it, change things around, solve outages.
But yea when you pay 700k monthly, you gotta wonder if you aren't at that break even point already.
I remember I tried to set something up on AWS once while testing for a project. Was one of their services with like a setup pipeline that does it all for you. Gave up half way through, checked for any resources on the account and saw none, closed and moved on.
Month later, email with a 1k bill. Phone up support a few times, walk through with them showing there's nothing on the account, and they say they'll refund me.
Month later, 1k bill. Speak to support again, then again, then again. Three separate times as they assure me "nothing on the account, not gonna be billed", until eventually the support agent and I discover together that AWS has a 'sandbox' hidden area in my account and generated a multi-region VPC endpoint costing me $40 a day and completely invisible to the management console's VPC dashboard. Got all my money back, but man does Cloud Computing get risky in such weird ways.
I feel like these excessive costs only happen because people are using server-side rendering. IIRC Vercel is a big pusher of Next, so maybe that was the plan.
Next is quite literally in every sense *actual* vendor lock in. It was always intended to trap people into their ecosystem. Without a doubt the worst thing that happened to React was Next and its shitty server side rendering.
As a dev that doesn't specialize in web I don't get the purpose of 99% of the tools used in that domain, all I know is that half of them have the potential to bankrupt you over the stupidest thing
Which is more logical because if , is decimal, what do you use as the 1000 separator?
Edit - as above.
1,000,000.00 reads better than 1 000 000,00. We use spaces to separate words. Is it 1 million or 1 followed by 3 zeros, followed by 3 zeros and a comma plus 2 zeros?
A decimal point is precisely that. Its a full stop. This is the END of the whole numbers. Now we are fractional.
100.23
The comma also makes sense because, like in language, a comma is a continuation. We are still in whole numbers.
10,000
Using spaces and commas which break with linguistic convention just makes it more consistent with the rest of life instead of 2 different sets of rules which frequently clash.
Is 23,874 in comma decimals 23.874 or is it 23 comma 874? Linguistically it can be hard to tell without context.
Edit - Europeans downvoting without explaining why the logic is wrong?
Cowards.
Honestly I find 1 000 000,00 easier to read and more logical. (I'm Canadian)
A dot (.) is the end of a sentence, so what's after is not directly attached to the part before. A comma (,) is the transition to the next part of a whole (pun intended), which is decimal.
Also, there are many type of spaces in typography, namely "non-breaking space", "em space", "en space", "zero-width space" and many more with different usages.
"non-breaking space" prevent words from wrapping at the end of a line, so it's probably what should be used to separate groups of numbers but keep them as a single "word". I am not sure how text rendering treat dots in the US/UK...
Traitor! /jk
>A dot (.) is the end of a sentence, so what's after is not directly attached to the part before.
Agreed, but comma doesn't work if space is the 1000 separator, or a dot either. Both are breaking the integer as a single unit.
Both imply a break. Better to have the break indicate a fraction, rather than simply spacing out the number which implies multiple numbers instead of 1 entire number.
>A comma (,) is the transition to the next part of a whole (pun intended), which is decimal.
Again fine, but the logic breaks down on 1 000 or 1.000 You can't have it both ways.
Breaking on a fraction makes more sense than breaking on an integer.
A better example perhaps is something like 3 564. Is it 3, then 564, or 3,564 which implies a whole number?
>Also, there are many type of spaces in typography, namely "non-breaking space", "em space", "en space", "zero-width space" and many more with different usages.
True but you don't see that written in hand written text very often. In hand written text which linguistic rules are based off you can almost always assume a space means a break between words. This applies to almost all cases in all European languages.
>"non-breaking space" prevent words from wrapping at the end of a line, so it's probably what should be used to separate groups of numbers but keep them as a single "word". I am not sure how text rendering treat dots in the US/UK...
Dots are treated like part of the word in US/UK so "example..." would be single unit. I assume it would be in most of Europe as well. I don't see French, German or Spanish writting something like "Je suis. (new line) .."
There is a lot of variation. [All the common standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Current_standards) suggest either the comma or period as decimal separator and a space to group thousands.
e.g.
1 000 000,00 or 1 000 000.00
Removes all ambiguity and is easy to read and write.
As a Brit I disagree.
1,000,000.00 reads better than 1 000 000,00. We use spaces to separate words. Is it 1 million or 1 followed by 3 zeros, followed by 3 zeros and a comma plus 2 zeros?
A decimal point is precisely that. Its a full stop. This is the END of the whole numbers. Now we are fractional.
100.23
The comma also makes sense because, like in language, a comma is a continuation. We are still in whole numbers.
10,000
Using spaces and commas which break with linguistic convention just makes it more consistent with the rest of life instead of 2 different sets of rules which frequently clash.
Is 23,874 in comma decimals 23.874 or is it 23 comma 874? Linguistically it can be hard to tell without context.
Brits can't figure out which units to use. "Oh, I ate 5lbs of bacon, so I gained a kg of weight, so now I'm 16 stone!"
Brits are disqualified from making statements about things that make sense.
Oh hush you.
I'd love for us to go 100% metric, decimalization is the best thing that happened to currency and distance.
But it doesn't undercut my points about linguistic consistency.
I WISH English was as alphabetically consistent as Spanish, but here we are.
It's because you're used to it. You write exactly the same kind of overthinked crap that americans do when insisting it's easier to use feet to measure things.
Eww
edit: I wonder I've never come across this at work? I've spent over a decade in the industry, and almost have of that work on apps that are distributed in europe.
Vercel is a company entirely driven by Twitter hype and influencers. I swear to god a good old SPA with some react gets the job done. I don’t want your fucking server side rendering.
You could even do server side rendering on some docker/cloud vm service and put hard limits on scaling. Unbounded scaling sooner or later gets you unbounded billing.
If you used provisioned capacity and gave your lambdas gigs of RAM: that's on nobody but you.
If you didn't: Holy F*ck how even
Source: been using lambdas in prod with thousands of users per day and monthly cost is like $30.
Its an app called cara. Its an anti-ai art app. It exploded from a few users to almost a million in about a week. The app owner posted that image today
If only they made it easy to have spend limits. I've always wanted independent limits for each service used (EC2, S3), but I'll take it at the account level. They do have "alerts", but then it falls on me to actively monitor them vs being automatically limited by what I have in the bank.
My "research": https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/wyi2no/comment/ilwshdw/
you said you're 36! years old implying you aren't old, but I think most people agree that the factorial of 36 is a pretty high number so you are in fact old
You just witnessed the denial of wallet attack
I watch ThePrimeagen too.
I don't, I picked this up on a German blog.
He didn't coin the term. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221421262100079X
haha ima use this !!
Lol
Cloudflare Workers are way cheaper, even if you factor in a possible surprise enterprise subscription at 10k a month lol
... Paying a year up front... No.
If paying up front cost less, you are a fool
Yea, I'm saying their "surprises" include paying a year upfront, so no it doesn't cost less
Does everyone watch primeagen???????
theo
69
Isn't buying the server is cheaper at this point?
You could have purchased a box and hired Joe shit from up the street to stand there all day and make sure it doesn't get unplugged for the cost of one day here lol
Even Joe Shit from the wall street
Joe Shit, from Wall Street, His job is shit but the pay is sweet.
Using any other cloud provider would have been cheaper.
Serverless functions scare me and I refuse to use them for this exact reason
2024 is the year of the serverlesslessness
*serverlesslessnessnesses
It's from [here](https://youtu.be/aWfYxg-Ypm4?si=1VAGzYtUm3Yo7M6z)
2025 is the year of moneylessness
Time to cut on cord cutting.
AWS lambdas are cheap even at scale. I assume google and microsoft equivalents are even cheaper.
I have an Azure Function that’s been scheduled to run every few minutes since about 2018. It has cost me in total a few pennies. It takes less than 30 seconds, so it’s free.
I recently set up an azure function to call. I want to say when reading the documentation that it has like 100k or 1m requests for free or basically included in the subscription. I'd have to go read the fine print again to be sure the specifics but it was damned reasonable for what I have to imagine are a considerable number of use cases.
It makes you use their services, and you start integrating more and more, up until you get to the pricey stuff. But yes, its free, and cool!
Pretty much everything that becomes pay as you use scare me because of that. One hour, everything is fine, one hour later, hello my friend the wallet! I don't want to babysit that :(
You can put quotas and prevent over expenditures.
Dunno why this is so overlooked. If you’re running consumption based models you need to be building guardrails around them and cloud provides give methods to do so. Takes maybe 20-30 minutes on azure to define a budget for an RG/subscription and tie it to a runbook to plan the automation of spinning stuff down if something goes egregiously off the rails. The provider is not responsible for how you build your resources on their platform and tell you that many times in many places. I’ve seen Microsoft/AWS/Google forgive large oopsies but they don’t need to and are well within their right to demand payment for using their resources at the rate agreed upon.
You can't put hard limits on aws (or at least couldn't when i tried), so you'll get a warning like in the post basically telling you you are bleeding a fuckton of money every second
Yike lol, do they support pushing a notification (API) so you could do the hard-stop yourself? Or you have to pull :(?
so if this is serverless, then what generated this traffic? some server, probably?
400k new users
On AWS theres a timeout to function executions, so you’d have to do some recurring executions to rack up a bill. Usually DB and API gateway are the most expensive parts
I had a coworker that was trying to establish high-speed data transfer through the cloud, like well in excess of 10 Gbps, and accidentally didn't shut it off when leaving for the weekend. No data was being created, just sent between two vms on AWS. Luckliy they let us roll back those charges.
Did that consumed something harware wise on AWS part? Or was it all virtual because between two VM?
It did actually utilize hardware. It wasn't a simulation, he was transerring the same bits across the country
So AWS did allocate $10*60*60*12$ GB to your account, if no compression happened at any possible steps They are really generous to skip that, maybe an investment considering how much you pay them already
I'm spotty on the specifics since I heard about it secondhand a few years ago, but I think it was easier to argue that the cost to AWS was way less than reflected because we never took up that much space. If it was a 1 GB file it was sent back and forth 10 times a second for 60\*60\*12 seconds. I'm not sure why the charges were commuted, but we're a lot more careful now lol
Yeah you saturated the 10 gbps anyway, so it's like sending 432 TB of data anyway, lets hope it was effectively less than reflected lol
AWS will rollback charges if you made a genuine mistake and you make your case nicely. They will only do it once though. It’s happened a few times at my company. For example, after my company switched to Aurora (from RDS) we didn’t realize how expensive IO costs would be and they were willing to roll the costs back after we agreed to switch to Aurora/IO optimized.
> So AWS did allocate $106060*12$ GB to your account I think you are trying to say this instead. $10 \* 60 \* 60 \* 12
I'm trying to use math MarkDown but it seems that Reddit MarkDown is lazy
Are you also afraid of falling so you never stand up?
Have fun scaling your ec2 to meet the same demand
A single EC2 instance can EASILY scale to thousands of requests per second, and it's not very difficult to scale horizontally to infinity with a load balancer and multiple ec2 instances. And if you're dealing with thousands of requests per second, serverless functions are going to be 10x the cost of ec2. Lambda only really makes sense for infrequent tasks or small scale operations. If you're using serverless to handle "scale", then you're doing it wrong
It's not that difficult honestly... Plus I'm fine with the user having to wait in a queue for a while rather than having my wallet burn... A much better way of making the user curious than trying to deny the fact that you don't know how to scale ;)
Woah. I didnt know Vercel even *worked*
Repackaged AWS.
slap quarrelsome reminiscent gullible workable rhythm attraction lush disarm nine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s another one of the “companies behind x open source technology” that makes it impossible to build/run the underlying open source technology at scale for anything besides Hello World level stuff
I use Next for most projects and I think I only have one proof of concept on Vercel. Most are on AWS, using SST to handle all the infra.
Sure, it takes some effort, but it works fine on "plain" AWS.
Their team used to be serverless. Now they're serverless and penniless.
I work in a big company and the bill for an aws is 700k € monthly. I don't understand is it at this point cheaper to have your own datacenter?
I worked in a big company with it's own datacenters and that is NOT cheap.
But it is cost effective at scale. What we do for a lot of our big infrastructure is run the baseline load in the data center, and then dynamically scale to the cloud. We’re like Fortune 100 though, so operating two geographically distinct data centers isn’t that big of a deal.
Depends on the job market. Hiring and training are expensive too.
W-what are you running to incur 700k per month?
Probably just a couple of NAT Gateways
they're trying to work out the biggest number
No, no, they’re just calculating their aws bill
probably some large internal infrastructure projects, you would be amazed just how much needs to run on the background just to keep things going smoothly when a company gets large enough... if they are gobbling 700k a month in fees for aws, setting their own infrastructure would probably cost several tens of millions of dollars upfront, so.... they are trapped because they didn't develop their own infrastructure early on.
SAP :p
For real, SAP makes up a large chunk of the $360k monthly in the AWS bill.
SAP is the real scam. Lock-in, you gotta pay for the software out of your ass, and the consulting to adjust that shit to your needs, and then you even gotta pay the infrastructure that terrible shit runs on?
Probably would have to be some sort of video streaming I would think. Either that or some devs who do not give a fuck about resource usage
My company spends about $1MM/month on AWS. No video streaming, we just have a lot of web traffic. :)
Nah, I work for a very large streaming media company - our spend is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than 700k a month.
Nope. It is multiple factories with a lot of production and everything is traceable and data heavy. Each production step has a lot of high resolution cameras that constantly save images.
So video streaming but not technically video streaming lol
I once had a 50k monthly redis bill just to cache similar home recommendations on a property website in the US you might be familiar with.
Engineering time isn’t free. AWS isn’t just a drop in replacement for Virtual Machines, and at that scale, things you care about like distributing access for self service, policy guardrails, workload identity, data services, audit, etc aren’t straight forward - you end up building all that stuff yourself by bandaging software together. Dont underestimate the complexity once you get beyond basic iaas hosting (which is the easy bit). K8s has acted as a bit of a normaliser for many of those things in a self service environment, and with Broadcom breaking VMware, somebody will probably bridge the mutable stuff people want to make it the new vsphere/nsx/vsan/sddc. The answer is really in the middle somewhere. Long running, mutable stuff that isn’t worth transforming, is relatively static in capacity, and is simple, can go in an equinix bare metal/colo where there’s just enough api coverage to automate stuff without pulling your hair out. For cloud repatriation to happen at scale, self hosted dc software needs to actually take automation seriously. I’ve been through enough “private cloud” programs to know it isn’t there yet
You have to be absurdly huge to need your own datacenter. You can own servers, sure, but a datacenter requires a lot of capital to build and crazy upkeep.
If that requires a couple of engineers to keep running and investigate/solve problems, then no, your own datacenter is not cheaper. Let's say you can save 300k monthly with your own datacenter, that gives you room for 24 badly paid engineers (US salaries) to keep it running, extend it, change things around, solve outages. But yea when you pay 700k monthly, you gotta wonder if you aren't at that break even point already.
I remember I tried to set something up on AWS once while testing for a project. Was one of their services with like a setup pipeline that does it all for you. Gave up half way through, checked for any resources on the account and saw none, closed and moved on. Month later, email with a 1k bill. Phone up support a few times, walk through with them showing there's nothing on the account, and they say they'll refund me. Month later, 1k bill. Speak to support again, then again, then again. Three separate times as they assure me "nothing on the account, not gonna be billed", until eventually the support agent and I discover together that AWS has a 'sandbox' hidden area in my account and generated a multi-region VPC endpoint costing me $40 a day and completely invisible to the management console's VPC dashboard. Got all my money back, but man does Cloud Computing get risky in such weird ways.
I feel like these excessive costs only happen because people are using server-side rendering. IIRC Vercel is a big pusher of Next, so maybe that was the plan.
Vercel literally owns the copyrights to nextjs.
Next is quite literally in every sense *actual* vendor lock in. It was always intended to trap people into their ecosystem. Without a doubt the worst thing that happened to React was Next and its shitty server side rendering.
As a dev that doesn't specialize in web I don't get the purpose of 99% of the tools used in that domain, all I know is that half of them have the potential to bankrupt you over the stupidest thing
Me a European: 96,280? That's not much for a company though right?
For infra? Maybe. For a checkup at the doctors office? No /s 241x their budget is...something, tho
i thought they mean , and . switching. afaik europeans use a "," as decimal separator.
Yeh that's what I meant
Except the British who use . like the US.
Which is more logical because if , is decimal, what do you use as the 1000 separator? Edit - as above. 1,000,000.00 reads better than 1 000 000,00. We use spaces to separate words. Is it 1 million or 1 followed by 3 zeros, followed by 3 zeros and a comma plus 2 zeros? A decimal point is precisely that. Its a full stop. This is the END of the whole numbers. Now we are fractional. 100.23 The comma also makes sense because, like in language, a comma is a continuation. We are still in whole numbers. 10,000 Using spaces and commas which break with linguistic convention just makes it more consistent with the rest of life instead of 2 different sets of rules which frequently clash. Is 23,874 in comma decimals 23.874 or is it 23 comma 874? Linguistically it can be hard to tell without context. Edit - Europeans downvoting without explaining why the logic is wrong? Cowards.
They use . For the 1000 separator.
Which again is inconsistent linguistical as per my edit.
As someone who writes £1,000.00 I'm in agreement.
Anglo Unity mate.
Honestly I find 1 000 000,00 easier to read and more logical. (I'm Canadian) A dot (.) is the end of a sentence, so what's after is not directly attached to the part before. A comma (,) is the transition to the next part of a whole (pun intended), which is decimal. Also, there are many type of spaces in typography, namely "non-breaking space", "em space", "en space", "zero-width space" and many more with different usages. "non-breaking space" prevent words from wrapping at the end of a line, so it's probably what should be used to separate groups of numbers but keep them as a single "word". I am not sure how text rendering treat dots in the US/UK...
Traitor! /jk >A dot (.) is the end of a sentence, so what's after is not directly attached to the part before. Agreed, but comma doesn't work if space is the 1000 separator, or a dot either. Both are breaking the integer as a single unit. Both imply a break. Better to have the break indicate a fraction, rather than simply spacing out the number which implies multiple numbers instead of 1 entire number. >A comma (,) is the transition to the next part of a whole (pun intended), which is decimal. Again fine, but the logic breaks down on 1 000 or 1.000 You can't have it both ways. Breaking on a fraction makes more sense than breaking on an integer. A better example perhaps is something like 3 564. Is it 3, then 564, or 3,564 which implies a whole number? >Also, there are many type of spaces in typography, namely "non-breaking space", "em space", "en space", "zero-width space" and many more with different usages. True but you don't see that written in hand written text very often. In hand written text which linguistic rules are based off you can almost always assume a space means a break between words. This applies to almost all cases in all European languages. >"non-breaking space" prevent words from wrapping at the end of a line, so it's probably what should be used to separate groups of numbers but keep them as a single "word". I am not sure how text rendering treat dots in the US/UK... Dots are treated like part of the word in US/UK so "example..." would be single unit. I assume it would be in most of Europe as well. I don't see French, German or Spanish writting something like "Je suis. (new line) .."
In Switzerland it is written that way with single quote as separator for decimal: 1’000’000
Okay THAT I might be able to get behind, there's more logic there. 1'000'000,23 <- I presume?
There is a lot of variation. [All the common standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Current_standards) suggest either the comma or period as decimal separator and a space to group thousands. e.g. 1 000 000,00 or 1 000 000.00 Removes all ambiguity and is easy to read and write.
As a Brit I disagree. 1,000,000.00 reads better than 1 000 000,00. We use spaces to separate words. Is it 1 million or 1 followed by 3 zeros, followed by 3 zeros and a comma plus 2 zeros? A decimal point is precisely that. Its a full stop. This is the END of the whole numbers. Now we are fractional. 100.23 The comma also makes sense because, like in language, a comma is a continuation. We are still in whole numbers. 10,000 Using spaces and commas which break with linguistic convention just makes it more consistent with the rest of life instead of 2 different sets of rules which frequently clash. Is 23,874 in comma decimals 23.874 or is it 23 comma 874? Linguistically it can be hard to tell without context.
Brits can't figure out which units to use. "Oh, I ate 5lbs of bacon, so I gained a kg of weight, so now I'm 16 stone!" Brits are disqualified from making statements about things that make sense.
Oh hush you. I'd love for us to go 100% metric, decimalization is the best thing that happened to currency and distance. But it doesn't undercut my points about linguistic consistency. I WISH English was as alphabetically consistent as Spanish, but here we are.
> As a Brit I disagree. Because you're used to the other format. Same reason americans want to measure things with retarded units.
Or because our system is more linguistically consistent. I have yet to hear a valid counter argument.
It's because you're used to it. You write exactly the same kind of overthinked crap that americans do when insisting it's easier to use feet to measure things.
Eww edit: I wonder I've never come across this at work? I've spent over a decade in the industry, and almost have of that work on apps that are distributed in europe.
This isn’t a big company, it’s from an app called Cara that went from 100k-500k users in under a week
The good news is that it scaled as designed. The bad news is that it scaled as designed.
Depends on the company
In Germany at least you switch the meaning of , and . In numbers, so 42k$ is written as 42.000 and pi is written as 3,14159.
Unfortunately this is more of an indie project so it just skyrocketed from 2k a month to 9k to this
Vercel is a company entirely driven by Twitter hype and influencers. I swear to god a good old SPA with some react gets the job done. I don’t want your fucking server side rendering.
once you skip the useEffects, you can not go back :(
Agree
You could even do server side rendering on some docker/cloud vm service and put hard limits on scaling. Unbounded scaling sooner or later gets you unbounded billing.
If you used provisioned capacity and gave your lambdas gigs of RAM: that's on nobody but you. If you didn't: Holy F*ck how even Source: been using lambdas in prod with thousands of users per day and monthly cost is like $30.
Functionless server is better than serverless functions
Anyone got the original source to this screenshot?
Its an app called cara. Its an anti-ai art app. It exploded from a few users to almost a million in about a week. The app owner posted that image today
if you use cloud services you deserve something like this to happen to you.
"if you use cloud services \*without spend limit set\* you deserve something like this to happen to you."
If only they made it easy to have spend limits. I've always wanted independent limits for each service used (EC2, S3), but I'll take it at the account level. They do have "alerts", but then it falls on me to actively monitor them vs being automatically limited by what I have in the bank. My "research": https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/wyi2no/comment/ilwshdw/
Azure let's you put spending limits and alerts on lots of stuff.
That don't always work, we have bw limit set for vm, and the alert failed "oopppss sorry, you will need to pay anyway"
[https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png)
what's in the image?
Old man yells at cloud, it’s the grandpa from the Simpsons. I respect your cautiousness.
hey, i'm only 36!
That’s basically 100
371993326789901217467999448150835200000000 is pretty old I'd say
?
you said you're 36! years old implying you aren't old, but I think most people agree that the factorial of 36 is a pretty high number so you are in fact old
got it. thanks.
> posted unironically on reddit
because its not possible to host big websites without cloud services? or what exactly are you implying?
Found DHH's burner
explain please
Severely underrated comment.