Today, is more important the time to market. You can use existing services to build your application, there are customers that don't have access to a pool of data scientist to run their own ML training for example. These would rather benefit from high level services that help them to deliver functionalities just by using APIs.

> it becomes far more cost-effective and performance to just manage your own hardware and infrastructure.

This is very wrong too. First of all managing hardware is not just buying a server and placing it in your room. There are plenty of other business functions needed to run an effective datacenter. Procurement, hardware eng, sys admin, security (net, app, etc) and the list goes on.

You can do that if you reach a critical mass or if you are able to attract the right talents for that.

Big enterprise customers will settle for a suboptimal usage of their resources with limited capabilities to expand further or settle for one size fits all. You need a DB? We bought 15mil on Oracle licenses sorry about that, your no SQL needs or your vector search would be better make it work there.

As I said earlier, eventually this affects the time to market. Which is a far more important measure than cost for business. Especially thanks to the agility. If it doesn't work they tear it down, you don't need to keep paying for it.

The thing is that my comment couldn't be anyhow related to today's situation (I've used the past tense) since communist doesn't exist anymore (not the way it used to) and most of the country that implemented it widely abandoned it (probably the only exception is perhaps North Korea)

Nowhere in my comment I said that communism is good

It was a simple comparison point on the previous comment that, by my standard was also wildly off base (given that he said dumb to a whole country basically)

the fact is that the west seems to be so attached (weirdly) to communism despite even those who implemented it already abandoned.

Are you scared of ghosts or what?

true, because the citizens of these countries are already uninformed enough about communism that they are indeed the one that make it sound dumb

Ya of course! War is great, it pushed also industrial output and plenty of investments in researches. Plus it gets rid of the weak too! (This paragraph is sarcastic, I've to write it because many probably won't understand)

You should have a word or two with the families of those that lost their relatives in the plenty wars that lacerated this planet recently

or maybe finance yourself a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria to see how well established these countries are.

> some would argue that wars today are more todo with bringing areas of the planet up to date

Nobody argues that you're the only one. Also because it's clearly a false statement and a total misinterpretation of the war.

Have you ever had a look at other wars or you're taking Ukraine as example only because is the only one that you know about?

Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Congo, Libya. They're just a small list of countries that have been victim of wars recently. None of them is an example of how to rebuild things (or bringing them "up to date", also because they don't benefit the plenty billions of dollars that the US is sending to Ukraine.

but if your theory is really correct, why don't you move to Afghanistan and enjoy the western style of living that was brought there thanks to 20 years of war?

Apparently there are many people that are more incline to just smile and nod rather than arguing. Probably the geographical location of these is not really important. They're equally distributed across the globe

Yes, because for centuries they were having children with their relatives.

If you studied basic biology you would know that by doing that the gene pool become too small and many physical problems arise (and appearance is only one of them).

Incest, according to many sources, was the cause of collapse of the Egyptian empire. The latest pharaoh had all sort of problems (and mental problem was one of then too)

You're one, you're not "all artists"

> And in general, artists of yesteryear were either already rich

Very much a false statement, I can make a never ending list of artists that were born, lived and died as poor man. Van Gogh is one of them (just to make an example)

> or you were painting because a person with more riches than you have paid you to paint

there were plenty of painters that didn't focus on doing portrait of rich people or, for that matter, they weren't painting humans at all.

I don't understand your point, probably you never actually enjoyed art or entered a museum to make this empty arguments.

Or maybe, more likely, you're like many HN commentators that like to write a long empty message for the sake of arguing because you like doing that rather than understanding the comment.

unless you've data that demonstrate what you just said, is simply not true. Just because you have a few anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

If you're willing to take the risk of having private actors cut corners.

You don't want spend anymore 6 month to write your UI interface for example, something that probably was ok to do 20 years ago.

It doesn't get easier, you just have more abstraction that helps to quickly build applications.

If it gets easier, it's easier for young folks too