let's hope it happens soon, I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault
You're configuring something that costs money (electricity, hardware, real estate) to provide. Either it's "pay as you go" or you have a flat rate and a cap.
If you have a cap and then your thing hits the front page and suddenly has 10000% more legitimate traffic than usual, and you want the legitimate traffic, they're going to get an error page instead of what you want. If there is no cap, you're going to get a large bill. People hate both of those things and will complain regardless of which one actually happens.
The main thing Google is screwing up here is not giving you the choice between them.
The main thing Google is screwing up is that if my API key somehow leaks and I end up with extremely out of line billing at Microsoft, I will be on the phone with a customer representative as soon as we or they notice something weird happening and a solution will be found.
Google will probably have me go through five bots and if, by some kind of miracle, I manage to have a human on the phone, they will probably explain to me that I should have read the third paragraph of the fourth page of the self service doc and it's obviously my fault.
It took me approximately 6 months to get a billing dispute resolved with Google. Somehow my maps key got leaked, and someone ran up 1.8k in charges on it.
Super, super painful. That being said, I'm still using Google for geocoding (mostly batch) because their service works better for my data.
Imagine the outrage here, when a company credit card expires and the cloud provider terminates all their instances, deletes all your storage and blob backups?
it's not an either or, they can easily let me configure any kind of behavior that I want. No cap, a hard cap, a soft cap, a cap that I program with a python script, a cap where I throttle, a cap where I opt in to deleting certain machines to save money. It can all be done. People are complaining because obvious features are not provided. People would not be complaining if they had all the options that we needed to control how to scale resources in response to load, not just technical load but also financial load.
You can already do any of those things in your own code when making the API requests. The issue here is, if you unintentionally try to make a billion expensive requests or allow someone else to do it against your account, do you want them to automatically turn off your stuff or do you want the bill that comes if they don't?
You seem to not comprehend the concept of informed choice.
Upstream in the comments someone said they expect the EU might soon rule this type of billing illegal. That doesn't mean it becomes illegal, it just means yet another reaffirmation or reminder that - yes - this is indeed illegal.
You said that no fixed response -whether that is allow unexpected billing to increase without limit upon a surge vs serving error pages- will be accepted by the clientele, because some want it one way and others want it the other way.
Why would you force a single shoe size onto a population? Give them the choice. Whenever freedom of choice is violated in the name of market freedom, it is nearly always a violation of law, it's just a matter of hoping one lives in a jurisdiction that upholds its laws
> The issue here is, if you unintentionally try to make a billion expensive requests or allow someone else to do it against your account, do you want them to automatically turn off your stuff or do you want the bill that comes if they don't?
That is precisely the choice people are asking for! And it doesn't have to be just those 2 options: let the user define their own trigger formulas for different levels of increase: a small one might result in a notification delayed until certain working hours on weekdays and log each visitors reported origin (referer header), a slightly larger one might result in a notification during awake hours regardless of weekday or workday, yet a further larger consumption increase may trigger an unconditional notification, yet a further one might trigger an unconditional notification that requires a timely confirmation by the user/organization, in the absence of which a soft measure could be taken like adding a small header to the page being served notifying visitors that while still functional a hug of death may be in progress, and asking the visitors to paste the URL of the page from where they clicked the link to your site (to make sure that a full URL can be consulted in case the host operators are unable to find the hyperlink that led to their site from merely the origin domain), yet another increase in traffic may be chosen to result in specifically rate limiting users from the originator domains that caused the peak, so that your regular visitors from the past can still make normal use of the page, and so on.
Do freedom, choice, informed choice, preparedness mean something to you?
We could have an open standard configuration textual machine readable file format for these choices and settings, so that people can share their settings, and the machine readable format could have <private> tags to wrap around phone numbers etc to notify, so that people can easily run a command line program or script that censors those exact values and replaces the first phone number like "<private><phone>(+32)474123456</phone></private>" with "<private><phone>generic phone number 1</phone></private>" and the second email address in the file like "<private><email>john.smith@nonprofit.org</email></private>" is replaced with "<private><email>generic.email@address.2</email></private>", so that people can easily export and share such files, possibly hosting it like robots.txt but say billing_policy.txt so people can inspect how others handle these situations so that popular consensus policies can form.
Hosting, compute etc. services that allow users to configure such files and have them be executed by the hosting service will be more attractive than those which don't.
> You said that no fixed response -whether that is allow unexpected billing to increase without limit upon a surge vs serving error pages- will be accepted by the clientele, because some want it one way and others want it the other way.
No, it's because people dislike both of those things and don't want either one of them, and frequently fail to realize ahead of time that choosing between them is even necessary and then get upset by whichever one actually happens.
> Why would you force a single shoe size onto a population?
Here's my original post:
> The main thing Google is screwing up here is not giving you the choice between them.
> And it doesn't have to be just those 2 options
We're talking about an API used by programmers. You don't need them to give you any of that, all you need is for the API to tell you what your current usage is -- and even that is only necessary if something other than your own code is racking up usage. When you're the one making queries and the price of each one is known ahead of time or available via the API, you can already implement any of that logic yourself.
You're oversimplifying the problem in the other direction. Fine-grained scriptability of hard limits would bump up against all of the thorny distributed systems problems. But I do agree that fixing the simple cases is straightforward - maximum spend rates per instant and per unit of time (eg per minute, hour, day, month). Providers would shoulder the small costs from the slightly-leaky assumptions they have to make to implement those limits, and users can then operate within that framework to optimize what they want on a best-effort basis (eg a script that responds within a minute to explicitly scale resources, or a human-in-the-loop notification cycle over the course of hours so that you have the possibility to say "actually this is popularity traffic that I really do want to pay for, etc).
> I'm pretty sick of this reality where companies get to charge you whatever they want and it's designed to always be your fault
But have you considered it from the companies POV? Charging whatever you like and its always the customers fault is a pretty sweet deal. Up next in the innovation pipeline is charging customers extra fees for something or other. It'll be great!
Why should I care about the companies POV? The company always wants to rat fuck everyone to make money. The company should be legally compelled to care about the customer because that's the only way these things change.
This is just the utility model. It's nothing particularly nefarious. Consider what your electric utility, your water utility, etc. do. If you use more, you pay more. If someone comes around and hooks up a garden hose to your outside faucet and steals your water, or plugs an extension cord into your outside outlet and steals your electricity, you still pay. Unless you can catch the thief and make him pay.
Funny enough, the utility business broadly wants to move away from this model to more of a cap-based prepaid model. Where I live, to get on the standard payment system may require a quite hefty deposit up front, but the prepaid payment option does not. I get the impression that, if not for customer sentiment and inertia, this would be the default option.
That too is a major problem, in theory you could be posing fine questions but they are already politically or socially tainted so it's game over before it even started, you will get zero actual new thought from the person you asked.
What I don't understand about Polis though is who is creating these less biased polls full of unbiased positions that people can vote on? It takes a lot of intelligence and wisdom to even formulate a question that isn't tainted by layers and layers of political innuendo. You can't just put something like "Do you believe in the rights of the unborn child?" into a system like this and expect quality outcomes.
I guess the theory is that you put the entire spectrum of positions on the line which allows fully biased positions on each end to exist. Then biased people on both ends will vote on slightly less and less biased positions that they still agree with and you'll see the true shared positions. But I still think that if you don't have a perfectly equal number of positions to vote on for each side you'll end up with the same problem we already have in society, people are being given biased questions not necessarily by strength but by amount. Therefore they will subconsciously and consciously conclude that the world wants them to be more towards the position that had more questions presented.
Many (most?) issues don't fit on a single dimension. Using your example, people hold positions that include "Absolutely!", "Yes, but also the rights of the mother.", "Yes, but I won't impose my beliefs on others.", "No, but I don't think people who feel otherwise should be forced to pay for abortions through taxes.", and many others.
In addition to the problem with biased questions you note, there are often built in assumptions that make yes or no responses impossible.
You are not the only one, it's to the point where I think that these benchmark results must be faked somehow because it doesn't match my reality at all.
I like your design idea in principle but you said in the reddit thread 7 months ago in regards to rendering the components that "Besides the landing page itself, not yet. That's the next priority". Now you don't mention it as a priority anymore. It's a pretty big red flag for ui frameworks not to be able to render their ui components in their own docs.
I just tried it, I said "what's up buddy, hey hey stop" and it transcribed this for me: " وطبعا هاي هاي هاي ستوب" No, I'm not in any arabic or middle eastern country. The second test was better, it detected english.
I read that the vectors for the same phrase in multiple languages are very similar, to the point where if a russian speaker writes english, the model might think it's russian
I sure hope I never have to hunt down any GTM options myself soon and I can tell the AI to do what it should be doing. However AI adoption may be getting slowed down by profit motives because what Google should have already been doing is letting me git clone the entirety of GTM with all its configs to a local folder so I can treat it like code because it is code. The difficulty with AI adoption will be to make all products be like this so they can interact on a code level instead of me having to press buttons in different UIs to make thing shappen. E.g cloudflare should be letting me git clone its entire config, everything I did in the dashboard, to my folder too.
It's worded really badly, so vscode is the thing that provides the dangerous features? No problem, I know and trust vscode. What the message should be warning about is that the folder may contain dangerous code or configuration values that can execute upon opening due to vscode features that are enabled by default. That sounds worse for them but that would be honest.
But you, as a security conscious software developer, know that the phrase "may automatically execute files" can also be "with malicious intent" - the tradeoff that whoever made the text (and since it's open source it's likely been a committee talking about it for ages) had to make is conciseness vs clarity. Give people too much text and they zone out, especially if their objective is "do this take home exercise to get a job" instead of "open this project carefully to see if there's any security issues in it".
This problem goes back to uh... Windows Vista. Its predecessors made all users an admin, Vista added a security layer so that any more dangerous tasks required you to confirm. But they went overboard and did it for anything like changing your desktop background image, and very quickly people got numb to the notice and just hit 'ok' on everything.
Anyway. In this particular case, VS Code can be more granular and only show a popup when the user tries to run a task saying something like "By permitting this script to run you agree that it can do anything, this can be dangerous, before continuing I'm going to open this file so you can review what it's about to do" or whatever.
reply