Good question. Salesforce does well because they provide the application layer to the data.
The WWW in the 1990s was an explosion of data. To the casual observer, the web-browser appeared to be the internet. But it wasn't and in itself could never make money (See Netscape). The internet was the data.
The people who build the infrastructure for the WWW (Worldcom, Nortel, Cisco, etc.) found the whole enterprise to be an extremely loss-making activity. Many of them failed.
Google succeeded because it provided an application layer of search that helped people to navigate the WWW and ultimately helped people make sense of it. It helped people to connect with businesses. Selling subtle advertising along the way is what made them successful.
Facebook did the same with social media. It allowed people to connect with other people and monetized that.
Over time, as they became more dominant, the advertising got less subtle and then the income really started to flow.
Salesforce is similar in that it helps businesses connect with and do business with each other. They just use a subscription model, rather than advertising. This works because the businesses that use it can see a direct link to it and their profitability.
Because they lock you in. ChatGPT has no lock in, in fact none of the LLMs do just because of how they work.
Salesforce doesn't make a good product, and certainly not the best product. It doesn't matter, you don't need to if you can convince idiots with money to invest in you. And then the switching cost is too much, too late.
That business model is a dying one and all the software companies know it. That's why Microsoft has spent the last 15 years opening up their ecosystems. As automation increases, switching cost decreases. You cant rely on it.
How many words does it take to say QoS(quality of service)?
Too many apparently.
This problem has been solved but much like our bigger and faster computers efficency takes a back seat for MORE. Just throw MORE at it and the problem is solved. It's a failure of tech, capitalism, and the environment.
This is a very well written article that drives home the difference between smooth application responsiveness and numbers like bandwidth that are useless by themselves. I've shared this article with non-IT people who read it and had a much better understanding of how their home internet performance varies under contention.
It's also very real that there's a shortage of equipment for consumers that support any QoS let alone fq_codel or CAKE at a reasonable bandwidth rate, unless you're a power user dabbling in "prosumer" devices or racking your own switches. You could probably use a Raspberry Pi to do this for a 1Gbps connection but very few people have the know-how to do such things.
ISP issued home routers have a remote update procedure, enabled by default. At least that's how it works out in France.
Starting from there (to be checked), shortage of equipment is not a thing: most routers are programmable computers, all we need to do is update the software to something that doesn't suck. And best of all, the customer doesn't even have to know. They just wake up one morning, and as if by magic, their Zoom/Meets/Hangouts calls suddenly work better.
Now if most home routers are not updated by the ISP… my condolences to your country I guess.
Edit: OK, real question: how does home routing actually work in the US? Who is responsible for what equipment, and for the ISP issued equipment, are there any relevant remote update capabilities, and if so are ISPs actually competent at doing updates?
Here in the US the CPE provided by ISPs is almost universally barely functional and low quality. For fiber connections the actual interconnect hardware might be better quality. The box I have has some nice Alcatel-Lucent hardware.
The software running on these things is usually garbage.
Typically people will get routers from their ISP, and their ISP often charges a monthly fee. The ISP is then responsible for troubleshooting and updates. Except for network management related updates, my experience has been that they don’t often (or sometimes ever) issue updates. ISPs here expect most people will never directly interface with the router’s management functionality so it’s often very basic and clunky.
In my home we put any CPE we get into pass through mode and connect our own rack of professional network gear.
You don't need a Hackintosh to virtualize a Mac - you can actually download the MacOS image directly from Apple and boot it right into QEMU with the proper configuration. I've used a few scripts over the years that could have an OSX image running on Linux in less than 15 minutes.
I echo your statement and to take it a step further:
In corporate politics there is only one thing that 'wins' and that is profitability. That profitability comes from the workforce so the top leaders are usually very motivated, democratic people because the best ideas win and you need people on your side.
Thinking about the public sector, there is no KPI for a 'win'. When we try to start using statistics it becomes 'political', skewered, or hand waved away as a complex marcoeconomic force.
I believe studies have shown that people will routinely make bad decisions from the point-of-view of business, even when it's clear to them that that's the case, because of their other biases which are too powerful to resist, specially things like racism or similar forms of prejudice (e.g. someone who is from the same social level and geographical region as the boss gets promoted over a demonstrably better candidate who comes from a less favored region of the same country... sexism also seems to apply in many countries, including the USA).
It's also just like any 4x strategy game. You can harvest resources and build and build but once those resources are depleted they deplete very fast because you have grown capacity for intake.
I'm glad we aren't worried about peak oil anymore but the climate and food scarity is going to be the next pitfall to avoid.
peak oil will happen, hopefully soon. but not because we run out of oil - it is nearly goddamn endless - but because we choose to stop burning it for all the reasons we are so familiar with.
combination of two things; first, we came up with new ways to get oil out of the ground, so it extended the deadline considerably. second, economic growth and oil burning decoupled, so instead of needing more and more oil we hit a steady number.
hopefully, we transition off it soon. but we’re no longer thought likely to run out, even if we don’t
I don’t see a viable plan to transition for plastics, so I suspect that oil consumption will remain substantial until plastics get enough expensive that we find viable alternatives. Conversely I don’t think we’re actually in danger of transitioning off of oil consumption in any real way in the next 20 years.
Petrochemical use is currently what, about 20% of total crude oil use? Yeah we'll probably need to start at least trying to tackle that soon even if the CO2 in the atmosphere thing is more urgent, but there's no pressing need to be a viable plan for 100% reduction now if we won't even think about using it for probably a decade at least. We've got the time to move forward one small step at a time and then verify each step so it isn't like plastic recycling ("Oh yeah we'll totally do it" *dumps in lower income country*) and measurable goals on shorter timeframes (say, 30% reduction by 2030) are much more achievable and effective than a vague long term goal of not using any more oil ever, not even a little bit. There's no shame in picking the low hanging fruit first.
Plastic is only cheap because it's a byproduct of oil. It'll stop being as cheap and plentiful if we stop producing oil and we'll naturally move to cheaper substitutes
Although I don't think oil use is going to end anytime soon
Gas, including ethylene from oil production, is used heavily in pharma, plastics and fertiliser production. If oil becomes uneconomic to produce, the supply of drugs, explosives, plastic and fertiliser is at risk, at the very least of price shocks.
Peak oil is not really just about untapped stocks, it's about the economics of supply and consumption. We won't "run out" of oil, it will stop being viable to produce it when gasoline ceases to be so economically important.
The feedstock uses of ethylene and lng are justified by the underlying consumption of petrol, diesel and heavy oils. It's profit from waste. If the gasoline isn't used the refineries shut down. If the entire cycle has to convert to fertiliser the economics of fertiliser change, and prices change.
Plastic can be made from hydrogen and carbon. Plastic is a minuscule fraction of our oil consumption. Maybe the oil-free synthesis path becomes economically attractive once we stop burning oil for energy and plastic feedstock is no longer a mostly free byproduct of that.
16% of world oil consumption is not nothing. AFAIK we don’t have good replacements and cost isn’t the only reason. And even if it is, think about how pervasive petrchochemical plastics are - it seems unlikely we’d go back so even if we switched to more expensive replacements, that means the price of a lot of stuff is going to go up by a lot…
Nuclear reactors and thermal depolymerization seems promising. We could probably mine every landfill site in America for a century before needing to think about something else.
Right but talk to most people and they’ve bought into this myth that renewables will help get us off fossil fuels while failing to consider the problem systemically. It’s like talking to a wall. We need to build an insane amount of nuclear reactors to get rid of fossil fuels from grid production but also to power secondary things like plastics manufacturing, carbon recapture etc. We need to be soaking up excess nuclear capacity. Excess solar is a joke because ultimately it has to recharge expensive batteries first whereas nuclear has a lot of excess night time and day time energy.
At present rates we’re likely to end up with an order of magnitude more renewable capacity than nuclear capacity, with that availability showing up as an equivalent number in cost. Any novel industrial process that relies on using huge amounts of energy will use the cheapest source of energy if at all possible, meaning that it will be engineered to deal with cheap but intermittent power sources. Unless there is some fundamental physical reason that it can’t work that way.
Any chance you’re a Doomberg reader? I’ve followed his recent writing and interviews on peak oil and I also enjoyed this Peak Prosperity video [1] arguing in opposition, looking at the short lifetime of fracked oil fields and lack of big post-Permian deposit finds. Also, oil is necessary as feedstock and in manufacturing infrastructure for oil alternatives.
Still, it’s frustrating that there’s such a disagreement on basic facts between two quantitative and careful thinkers.
I’m convinced that “density” is not a helpful metric here. There’s plenty of diffuse energy, and it’s advantageous to collect it near where it’s used, rather than make big pipes and ship it around
Disagree. Solar doesn’t work at night and it’s horribly inefficient to have a bunch of local batteries everywhere compared with centralized power generation with relatively cheap wiring distributing the centrally generated energy. Local generation is a greedy solution (I got mine) that has a shared cost (centrally generated power for those who can’t generate their own spikes massively in price). It’s basically a greedy “rich get richer” solution that also doesn’t actually solve the carbon problem because other people need electricity too.
I don’t see how fossil can be considered efficient when you have to consider digging it up, shipping it around, refining it, shipping it around again, burning it, piping the electricity for long distances. and if you want to argue that solar installations advantage the rich, surely you have to count the supply chain capital involved in fossil fuels! Solar plus battery is cheap and getting cheaper. “Inefficient” battery storage just means you need another panel. Every step of the fossil fuel supply chain is capital-intensive, land-intensive, and dirty
Always this "horribly inefficient" claim. Yet, several advanced economies are doing it. You think you're smarter than the power industry economists who say batteries are OK?
Basically, have you tried considering you might be .. wrong?
Source? Also, I think you may be replying to something I didn’t say. What I said was that installing batteries on each house is going to be less efficient than installing grid-scale batteries because you will end up over installing the amount of capacity you need initially so that you never go dark on the off chance you pull more power. Or you use a grid hookup as a backup in which case you end up kinda of parasitic where you don’t pay for the grid but rely on it being there to offload the responsibility of providing differential power when your home solution isn’t meeting your needs (this is expensive because the grid has non trivial maintenance costs that you’re not contributing to). Households will inevitably anlso under provision in the long term due to unaccounted for energy growth (eg EV vehicles). It’s also going to be more expensive because people who don’t have the capital to install their own batteries will be stuck paying the bill for grid scale batteries and maintenance anyway while richer households get to avoid that cost due to their own solar install.
As for grid scale batteries, they do remain prohibitively expensive - even nuclear with massive cost overruns handily beats solar + batteries. There’s also legitimate questions about whether we can actually manufacture enough batteries to have solar run as baseload power, especially with people adding an insane number of EVs in the coming decades to charge overnight. Remember - you have to recharge the batteries themselves which means you need a bunch of extra solar just to charge the night time batteries which means ~30% more capacity than is rated to handle daytime power otherwise. So 30% larger solar install than we’re building today + more battery capacity than we’ve ever demonstrated the ability to build.
But anyway. You can continue to believe in grid scale batteries as a way to make solar work for baseload but that has nothing to do with what I said about using solar+batteries for individual homes instead of grid scale power.
Have you considered that renewables don’t actually have a track record of replacing baseload power except for wind in some very specific and extremely unique geographic areas? And renewables also have a very poor track record in terms of having any reduction in fossil fuel consumption from the grid? Might be something to try on rather than making appeals to authority and claiming any skeptics are wrong.
Base load is a social construct used by coal and nuclear to justify the economically viable bid model which suits them. You can target the duck curve by batteries, and by demand management. People are perfectly capable of moving significant load in time, as evidenced by time of use charge models and off peak pricing.
More and more solar owners here in Australia deploy a battery when they can afford it and in Victoria the state government is funding solar and battery deployment for social housing.
Almost no new wind or solar can be deployed at scale in Australia now without battery deployment. Both individuals and grid scale batteries are fine. They serve different parts of the supply chain.
FCAS can be supplied by batteries and reactive loads by condensers.
Base load is a debating point. It's the load we can't currently supply from renewables. When we can, coal, oil, gas and nuclear may become uneconomical stranded assets. Nuclear would presumably last the longest because of the sunk cost of public money.
Networks are, and always were a public utility function. Converting to bid models was a huge mistake.
> Base load is a social construct used by coal and nuclear to justify the economically viable bid model which suits them. You can target the duck curve by batteries, and by demand management. People are perfectly capable of moving significant load in time, as evidenced by time of use charge models and off peak pricing.
Nuclear can be made to be load following and is in France. Baseload is just the cheapest way to generate power because the plants are simpler (+ demand pricing only needs to shift a small amount of power to smooth out the peak and valley caused by surges in human activity patterns instead of completely shifting night time usage which is a whole other massive amount of energy - peak to trough is typically only a ~30% drop from what I’ve seen). I think you’re being overly optimistic about people time shifting their night time load more drastically to reduce the need of batteries as there may be countervailing patterns that are unavoidable (eg if you’re not rich and work somewhere where there’s free charging at work during the day, you might need to charge your car at night when solar is most expensive - and EVs haven’t even become part of the grid story yet so any data today is horribly misleading). Demand pricing can shift things a bit but you’re not going to have a 90-95% peek to trough reduction in terms of shifting your night time usage to the day. There’s also a huge amount of industry that runs 24/7 (also hospitals) and there’s no time shifting a lot of that load (certain industrial processes can maybe shift but it varies a lot from it’s ok to 0% - it’s also typically an expensive capability to retrofit and will make those good more expensive just to accommodate solar).
> More and more solar owners here in Australia deploy a battery when they can afford it and in Victoria the state government is funding solar and battery deployment for social housing.
As I said, this is the most expensive way to build solar and batteries. Just because someone is doing it doesn’t change the reality that it’s a bad idea. What happens when energy usage grows over time? Think of the maintenance costs involved in upgrading a bunch of panels and batteries all over the place vs centrally installed ones in the grid. It’s a myopic short term plan. Easy to sell politically because who doesn’t love free government money. Also expect their utilities to start having serious problems operating and needing bailouts, to raise prices drastically, or risk going bankrupt as load disappears from their grid in favor of local generation. There’s a reason CPUC changed the pricing rules around selling solar back to the grid to remove the implicit subsidy homeowners were receiving from the grid (dropping rates from retail to wholesale). Even that was extremely unpopular and a political battle and doesn’t cover the fact that grid pricing isn’t broken down correctly because historically no one cared - the grid maintenance fee isn’t a mandatory tax for a dwelling and even when you pay it it’s underpriced vs how much it actually costs to maintain the grid because the electricity pricing would cover the rest.
> Base load is a debating point. It's the load we can't currently supply from renewables. When we can, coal, oil, gas and nuclear may become uneconomical stranded assets. Nuclear would presumably last the longest because of the sunk cost of public money.
Nuclear would last the longest because it remains the cheapest installed capacity (eg the amount to keep the California plant going still is cheaper than any new construction of solar/wind per watt). It’s still also cheaper per watt for new construction (even including absurd cost overruns that primarily come from a crazy regulatory environment and sustained deinvestment in nuclear which are both fixable issues) than the offshore wind projects that are starting to become popular and cheaper than solar if you start to include the required storage (which no one ever does when claiming that solar is cheaper than nuclear).
> FCAS can be supplied by batteries and reactive loads by condensers.
FCAS does not solve the problem of night time energy use. It’s horribly misleading to claim that this presents grid scale energy. It does not. It’s purely an arbitrage play because they can respond to changing market conditions faster than peaker plants. That’s fine and helps stabilize the grid, but it doesn’t represent sufficient capacity to power the grid at night (+ wear and tear in this usage is drastically different than charging and discharging every day).
For grid power, nuclear and hydro beat oil by significant margins. For shipping we’d need to deploy nuclear reactors that could be safe to operate on the seas. For cars and trains, electrified tied to a fossil free grid is enough and is happening however slowly. For planes and land shipping trucks that’s trickier and not sure what the answer there would be. But if we cut shipping, grid and automotive fossil fuels we’d be reducing global emissions to almost 0. It’s not enough at this point due to unlocked runaway effects meaning the 1.5C warming is long in our rearview in terms of being an unavoidable result and it’ll take us a long time to transition based on the current political approaches which means I suspect 3C or even worse is highly likely within the next 50 years.
Beyond arresting the worsening conditions (which we’re failing at spectacularly) I’m not sure how to unwind the damage. Technology is unlikely to save us unless we get insanely lucky somehow (like fusion reactors that are trivial to scale and trivial to make cheaply and then shoving all that energy into carbon recapture at a scale we don’t know how to do because even at current levels it’s diffuse enough that it takes a long time to capture a small amount of carbon).
Ultimately we’re going to need to get lucky on grid decarbonization (recent solar PV and wind bulldouts, particularly in China, are an incredibly welcome sign that this is happening.) And I’m afraid we might also need to do some kind of geoengineering. I’m much more nervous about the second part, because the first seems to be on an economic glide path that might make it self-fulfilling. But the second relies on a lot of coordination that might not happen.
Nuclear is like 2,000,000 times more dense than oil and it's perfectly safe with proper engineering. Far more people have died harvesting oil, nevermind the geopolitical problems with it, and far more people have died from coal mining than nuclear power plant disasters.
Nuclear alone is enough to sustain civilization nearly infinitely.
Meanwhile, natural gas is plentiful, geothermal is plentiful, solar and wind is plentiful and all of these contribute to energy availability.
Oil still has its uses, it's not going to go away, but I suspect consumption will be reduced by 90% or more in the next 2 decades.
Each Office 365 tenant does not have a personal Exhange server. The sending smtp server is being shared and can be verified with the email headers. That is how this flaw works.
I feel like an idiot because I see the same behavior with the variable 'not in my organization' with transport rules and how many false positives I've had. I can clearly see the usage of different exchange servers being used in my environment when my company acquires a bunch of users. It falsely flags them because they are using a different shared exchange resource.
I found a provider (NYU Lagone) that uses Epic since early 2010s.
I've heard problems with people who use the tool but as a patient to be able go see a decade plus of my hospital visits, checkups, scans, and x rays is pretty amazing.
I was going to write a witty intellectual comment about capitalism at work but with further reflection it needs to come from "both sides".
The economically disadvantage use plastic in their everyday life and an arbitrary tax on it would negatively effect them and make their lives harder.
At the same time they can see through the income gap that those who could afford an increase of plastic still shit all over the environment and would further lead to a divide in the issue.
The most recent example of this is people complaining about plastic straws whilst private jet use in unabated.
You say tax and that's how the policy should be implemented, but the real thing the tax would try to capture is externalities. Some of the bad stuff plastic does (I guess most of it, actually) is not included in its price. This is not at all capitalism.
That's not the situation here. Etsy holds seller payments in SVB in an account, that yes of course, is probably above the FDIC 250K limit since it represents the amount to be paid out to hundres if not thousands of sellers: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/business/etsy-warns-sellers...
Without derailing the discussion into whether Etsy "should have known better" (which to be clear is an argument that would be made in a simplified vacuum given the complexity of them probably just being an intermediary between a credit card processor and the sellers and thus it being fairly logistically complicated to set up that intermediary as some sort of multi-bank-account system or whatever), but regardless, even if that is the worst way to do it in the world, the point is that that's not the individual sellers' fault, and they shouldn't be punished for it. Again, as I mentioned in my comment, the position that "Well individual Etsy sellers should really do a financial analysis on the host platform's bank, quarterly, to account for interest rate changes, and if they independently conclude that that bank is unhealthy, they should pull their store off Etsy and... ???" is a bit hard to swallow, and I'm not sure if a world we really want to create.
