Clearly not, but this is a circular argument. As companies expand in size they naturally increase both their needs and their resources.

Are you arguing that using SaaS developer tools like the ones in this journal entry consumes a greater proportion of engineers' capacity than self-hosting does, and that this cost difference becomes proportionally greater as a company grows? If you're right, perhaps some cloud-based startups and also larger businesses will be eaten up by more nimble, efficient self-hosted competitors.

(I work for a cloud host)

Try "Chief executives and legislators"

You're not alone with this specific gripe. Some of my colleagues include sites similar to https://nohello.net in their staff directory page.

While this may be a serious problem it doesn't actually seem relevant to this breach - if a CRA has an incident of this severity, most ID schemes are still going to end up with a pretty large leak of PII that can be traced back to the individuals involved.

The point your parent is making is that in the US this information can be used to impersonate people.

In countries with modern identity solutions, this is not possible.

What is required to impersonate someone in, e.g., Belgium or Switzerland? To get a credit card or something, I mean.

Not from either of those countries but I was curious.

https://www.gemalto.com/govt/customer-cases/belgium

Belgium has a digital ID card. It's a smart card that contains fingerprint info. So you can put the card in a fingerprint reader to verify you match the card. Cryptographically secure so you can only get them from the government. Second, they have an online identification service and mobile app that can be used to verify your identity to banks online. There's also an under 12 kids version of the card that includes emergency contact info, etc.

Looking up info for Switzerland has a bit of a language barrier. It looks like it's still mostly just a national number similar to a SSN and national identification card. Documents from as far back as 2016 have their government planning a biometric id card and an electronic id. Some docs said they were aiming for a 2019 rollout but I couldn't find any recent updates.

The blog post and cloud provider's website both say the servers are bare metal.

I stand corrected. I didn't see it mentioned on the page but assumed because it was a "cloud server" that they were using multi-tenant infrastructure. But apparently for all servers they're bare metal, presumably provisioned with IPMI.

I still disagree with the previous poster's claims and conclusions, but I really should've done my homework better. I tried but clearly not hard enough.

If they were personalised it would be hard for sites like camelcamelcamel.com to exist, right? I would speculate that they don't personalise. Offering price discrimination as a service to third party sellers sounds like a minefield too.

The price you see in the buy box is not always the lowest price. Anyone can click through and view all the sellers for an item. Sites like that track all the items for sale.

Now that I think about it, price manipulation is probably illegal in most countries.

Running a few product lines at a loss is a classic way for a large company to put competitors out of business, in general terms. Once the competition is gone there maybe an opportunity for the remaining company to raise prices quite a lot.

This is happening inside cities though. I'll take some arrogance and selfishness to reduce the incidence of dengue.

> The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for.

Firstly "was" is not the right word, the war is ongoing: http://tass.com/world/965974

Secondly, imo the nature of the conflict is less important than whether a concentrated population of the adversary's citizens are within range of the weapon as far as determining the effectiveness of nuclear deterrent.

> Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea?

Would those that made the decision to invade have accepted the risk of even the most minute possibility? No leader has done that so far.

China, India and Pakistan, all three of them nuclear powers, have been fighting a low-level conflict over Kashmir for several decades. So far none of them has nuked the others.

Presumably, they realise the consequences of dropping a nuclear bomb in a region of the world with a couple billion people or three.

Didn't know much about this conflict, thank you for educating me. One other difference between those combatants and a theoretically nuclear armed Ukraine is that that war is more widely seem as an existential threat to an independent Ukraine. Kashmir political disagreement seems to rest on somewhat more limited territorial claims versus the desire of one party to post its military inside the other as well as to exert widespread political influence.

And no one has lost any territory to the other since they developed nuclear weapons. All conventional millitary conflicts date from before they became nuclear powers.

The Sino-Soviet border conflict occured after both were nuclear powers, as did the Kargil War between India and Pakistan.

India lost territory to China after both had nuclear weapons.

One could even go as far as calling the title clickbait.