Ouch, I wasn't aware they were discounting so much. There goes my subscription escape plan.

If this logic applied, then there would be no purpose in them having the 5 hourly limit.

The purpose is to control the total amount of requests they need to handle in a given timeframe. If everyone could use up their whole weekly limit in 5 hours, many would do so, thus pushing the GPU/TPU clusters to or above their capacity limits.

Same, though I'm reconsidering, in light of the recent bugs (which can happen to any provider) and the increased limits. I guess that's at least 3x more Opus for my usecase.

DNSSEC operations feels like one of those problems that should be tackled with formal methods, like how some subway controllers are.

But I expect it's treated like "very serious and scary ops", which isn't wrong, but isn't enough.

Yes, it's a crappy outcome, but endpoints can still choose to enforce this. Further, it's not a persuasive argument against more DNSSEC usage, since if there was more DNSSEC usage then resolvers would be more reluctant to disable it.

If only Chrome had deferred implementing delta updates back in 2009 (?), they could have introduced it along with this to make it a net zero change!

If it's emissions they worry about, then it's anything emitting.

Are they against washing machines too? Or are they just grandfathered in?

This is literally why the EU mandates appliance energy efficiency.

It's never a binary thing. "Is using energy good or bad?" is a stupid question which can only provide stupid answers. It has to be placed in the context of whether it's proportionate to benefit.

Things which burn a lot of energy for little benefit - and in the case of AI, often negative benefit - end up more towards the "bad".

That's a fair point.

I hadn't considered that societies rightfully impose standards on these things.

I consider it too early to judge the cost-benefit, but it's fair that others might have already evaluated that. I rescind my comment.

Don't be disingenuous. Not all energy is created equally.

Are we back to magic water and magic soil? Does the energy have some morality attached to it?

The emissions per kWh of energy used in providing internet downloads probably is similar to that per kWh of energy used for washing clothes.

You're not seriously trying to explain that a kWh is equal to a kWh. Why not cut the crap? Are you trying to say washing clothes is of equal importance to convenience features in a browser, given that we can use each clean kWh only once? I can't tell what you truly mean like this

>a kWh is equal to a kWh

Yes, and it's none of your business how other people spend their electricity.

That's where we disagree. With our current system so reliant on fossil fuels, every kWh generated is a debt to our planet, our society.

Until that's resolved, I don't wish that debt incurred for frivolous uses.

What do you mean you "disagree"? I pay for the electricity I use and I use it however I want.

Instead of trying to control other people, why can't you start with yourself? Throw away your phone/computer. Go live in a small hut. Practice what you preach.

You are not paying for the total cost of the electricity you use.

You pay for a portion of it, in money.

The other portion of it is belched up into the atmosphere for future generations to pay.

You are incurring debt and forcing it upon others.

>You are incurring debt and forcing it upon others.

You seem to have no problem whatsoever with using electricity yourself. So when do you get to tell me (or anyone else) how to live? And when does it stop? Btw, this is all bizarrely dramatic since we were talking about small local models anyway.

>future generations

Yeah, and some will also say (using the same arguments) that having children is harmful to the planet and we need "measures" to limit that too.

I’m not telling you to do one thing or another. I’m taking issue with your argument that because you pay an electric bill, it follows that you can do whatever you want.

That does not follow logically for me. As humans we disagree about many things, but we generally agree that things that we do often affect others, so one way or another, we need to come together and decide which things are agreed to be acceptable and which things are not.

Why do you get to tell me (or anyone else) how to live? Why do you get to decide that burning my forest is acceptable?

Not interested, go away.

You read what I wrote, you just chose not to engage with it and went into an ideological creed instead.

You may pay for it, but I and the rest of the planet incur the cost.

I can go live the life of a hermit and the above will still be true.

Your electricity use puts more pollution into our air. It burns our forests. It kills species we all depend on.

No man is an island. Your actions affect others. Just paying your indulgences does not make that basic fact away.

There's clearly opportunity for a GitHub replacement that can operate reliably at scale.

I support Forgejo and Codeberg, but it's not clear that its architecture can scale to GitHub levels.

Microsoft subsidises a lot of OSS development. Who has equally big pockets?

The BBC were unable to find a single CDN that could serve the UK during its peak football matches. https://www.bbc.co.uk/webarchive/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk...

+1. Multi-cloud is typically done for vendor independence.

But Github don't have that rationale.