Wikipedia is fairly transparent about how they spend the money. Anyone donating can easily check and donate to their liking. Stop making up random 10% etc.
I never understand this obsession that people have with non profit funding. A weird way of counting efficiency by counting how every dollar spend and not really the value produced.
Clearly Wikipedia is one of the most useful things in the world. They would be more "efficient" wrt money most people give to them even if they were to set fire to a large portion of it.
I'm sorry, is your argument really "if measured in terms of dollar per utility, they would be one of the most useful organizations regardless of how much money they set fire to, and therefore no one should complain if they just set money on fire"?
Their having made something useful does not entitle them to be able to set money on fire without objection, nor does it excuse ads implying the useful thing might go away when the reality is that they are asking for money because they would prefer to have more firewood to burn, without affecting the useful thing whatsoever.
No, these wealthy few are not paltry compared to governments, they used to be. But not anymore. Plus, they took control the government through corruption.
Wikipedia is mostly a success of the many, both with the many contributing content and editing and by the many contributing the funds to operate. If it wouldve been funded by someone like gates, it'd be a corrupt for profit ad ridden platform. Not because gates is evil, mind you, it's because gates bias leads him to believe for profit enterprises are the solution for everything.
Anyway, i agree experimentation is needed, that's why I was talking about averaging out biases.
I just don't agree that the darwinistic model that caused wealth to concentrate to be the best model to achieve this.
That wealth is mostly an unhelpful value based on number of shares in businesses multiplied by that business's share value today. Those businesses are valuable because they do useful things. We can't release that wealth to pay for things. This is the problem with the word "wealth".
Well yes you can sell shares, maybe not all of them at once if you have enough. Still not sure what your point is, that doesn't mean wealth is not extremely unevenly distributed.
"can do things others can't" isn't the thing we want to stop, though. Wealth isn't bad for those who focus on creating value, just as strength isn't bad for those who are in the gym 6 days a week.
Is that the right statistics here though? Billionaire classes ability to spend should be compared with governments ability to spend. This is not same as wealth.
> The few with money are still a fairly large class. They are also paltry in wealth as compared to the masses aka govt spending.
Governments must spend much more of their treasure chest (when they have one) than billionaires and are scrutinized more heavily. Risks are not the same. Ultra rich are way more capable of corrupting governments than the masses which gives them even more power.
With clouds this is not true anymore. They are exactly linear. If you ask for a smaller node they are simply propositioning a chunk of a larger machine anyway.
There is a point where the exponential pricing starts, but that point is way out there than most people expect. Probably ~100CPU, ~1TB RAM, >50Gbps network etc.
They're linear... because they're charging you rates based on the cost of the large server, divided down into whatever server you provisioned.
Amusingly, for $94K (probably more like $85K after negotiation) you can buy a white box server: Dual Epyc 9000, 96 core/192thread, 3.5GHz, w/ 3TB RAM, 240T of very fast SSD, and a 10G NIC. The minimum config, Dual Epyc 9124, 16core/32thread, 64GB RAM, and only 4TB of storage is $9K (more like $8K after negotiation). That's "only" a factor of 10 in price for 8X CPUs, 48X the RAM, and 60X the storage.
I find that if you are seeking lots of consumers around large topics no amount of RAM is really sufficient, and if you are mostly sticking to the tails like a regular Kafka user, even 64GB is usually way more than enough.
CPU isn't usually a problem until you start using very large compactions, and then suddenly it can be a massive bottleneck. (Actually I would love to abuse more RAM here but log.cleaner.dedupe.buffer.size has a tiny maximum value!)
Kafka Streams (specifically) is also configured to transact by default, even though most applications aren't written to be able to actually benefit from that. If you run lots of different consumer services this results in burning a lot of CPU on transactions in a "flat profile"-y way that's hard to illustrate to application developers since each consumer, individually, is relatively small - there's just thousands of them.
Something that has helped me, in many similar situation is to restate my intent.
Reminding myself that my goal is to be a better engineer tomorrow and not really to do a great job right now. I am after getting better, current work that i am doing is just way to get better. Taking such a position seems to solve lot of problems.
Criticism becomes something that i am actually after.
I am not attached to what I build in the past. Of-course it is crap, i would not do it the same way now as i am better.
Take pride in getting better. Not in in the job done.
I never understand this obsession that people have with non profit funding. A weird way of counting efficiency by counting how every dollar spend and not really the value produced.
Clearly Wikipedia is one of the most useful things in the world. They would be more "efficient" wrt money most people give to them even if they were to set fire to a large portion of it.