Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576421

Points: 18

# Comments: 4

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37576279

Points: 11

# Comments: 3

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35890447

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32943846

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32018887

Points: 8

# Comments: 1

This raises an interesting question - can a new technology ride the hype-train sufficiently long enough to become mainstream and benefit from network effects and ecosystem dynamics kicking in, even if in its best case scenario - it's only a replacement of status quo and not necessarily an improvement? Historically, any widely adopted technological innovation has had the burden to offer and prove incremental value to society to justify paying the transition costs. But here, the incremental value is being pitched as literal "money" to be made by getting in early - which can be hard to resist for your average joe - notwithstanding their passion or stance on the underlying technology. Believe this will be an interesting race condition between dying out of the hype on one side, and technology reaching critical mass to be self sustaining on the other side. In either case however, don't see anything fundamentally changing or improving for society, except perhaps some new players displacing (or getting bought out by) old ones.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29418532

Points: 340

# Comments: 258

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28296522

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

The 24 hours minimum is applicable to the allocation duration a Mac1 Dedicated Host, and not to the instances running on that host. Put differently - once allocated, a Mac1 Dedicated Host can only be released from your account after 24 hours. You can however can launch, stop, start, and terminate as many mac1.metal instances with fresh macOS AMIs on that host as you need while that host remains allocated to you.

Additionally, Savings Plan (https://aws.amazon.com/savingsplans/) on Mac1 instances can provide up to 44% savings over On-demand prices for longer term commitments.

1) After every stop/terminate of Mac instances, EC2 runs a scrubbing workflow on the underlying Dedicated Host to wipe the Mac mini's non-volatile storage and reset the NVRAM variables, to enable same security posture as any other EC2 instance. This workflow also upgrades the T2 chip on Mac mini to the latest BridgeOS version if needed. It may take 30-60 mins for this scrubbing workflow to complete, and up to 2-4 hours if BridgeOS update is required - during which the host shows up in "pending" state. We're actively working on lowering this scrubbing duration and really appreciate your feedback here. Important to note - You are not billed for any duration(s) during which the Mac1 Dedicated Host is in "pending" state (or any state other than "Available").

2. Once you have increased the size of the EBS volume on your Mac1 instance, you can execute following commands within macOS guest to increase the size of your APFS container.

1. Copy and paste the first three lines

PDISK=$(diskutil list physical external | head -n1 | cut -d" " -f1)

APFSCONT=$(diskutil list physical external | grep "Apple_APFS" | tr -s " " | cut -d" " -f8)

sudo diskutil repairDisk $PDISK

2. Accept the prompt with "y", then paste this command

sudo diskutil apfs resizeContainer $APFSCONT 0

Since the EBS volume was resized after boot, an instance reboot is required before the additional disk size is available for your use.

I don't think there's an opposition of facts and logic here. Grab was founded in 2012 (https://www.grab.com/sg/about/), Ola in 2011 (https://www.olacabs.com/about.html), and GoJek in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-Jek). All of these were entrenched players in their respective markets when Uber decided to put up a fight. Uber gave the Grab and Ola's VCs no option but to double down, if they were to save their existing investments. In this race to bottom, it was Uber who blinked first. Losing SE Asia was not an existential threat to Uber, but definitely for Grab. Media likes to talk winners and losers, but Uber did end up taking 27.5% stake in Grab just to leave the market (https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/24/grab-uber-deal-southeast-a...). However, their fight in India with Ola continues. But to my initial argument - back in 2010-2012, we thought that the network effect of social networks (like Facebook) extended to ride-sharing services too creating high barriers to entry. We know now that isn't the case. Imagine how a VC would react today to a startup founder pitching a ride-sharing idea in a market where Uber/Lyft are already entrenched, given what we have learned from Lyft IPO and Uber's SEC filing. My argument may seem counterintuitive here, but I believe that the Uber/Lyft's revealed financials is what may ultimately save them. They have successfully managed to make the ride-sharing market unattractive (at least for 10x return seeking VCs).