I'd probably describe it as saccharine. Or dare I say it [USA] "American"? Over the top, gushing, enthusiasm. It's off-putting to me (from UK) as it's, well, more the sort of thing you'd hear from a toady or, yes, a sycophant. It just seems insincere -- and it is in this case because there is literally no emotion behind it.

I wonder if that is true? Like, how tenacious are they with knowing customers? If the same IP address was used to login to manage two deployments would customer service see a potential link in their interface?

I'm never quite sure in our supposed data-driven economy how clever companies get with this stuff.

So I think a simpler explanation is more plausible: they are selling AWS at such a premium that they can afford normal human customer service and still make a lot of buck.

Amazon is amazing to be a customer of. Just not an employee of (not one, know many).

Hell, they still treat me well despite being a very out-spoken critic socially, and professional have steered a lot of clients away from their ecosystem and thus am objectively responsible for very real losses in revenue; though ultimately still surely a rounding error to their bottom line.

For context, these days I primarily work in helping people deploy performant and/or secure storage systems and associated networks. "This is how much money you're wasting by using AWS/the cloud" is a common approach for us, and the most common counter-point is how good AWS support is (and they're not wrong).

TL;DR: I have lots to criticize about AWS, but their support isn't really one of them, it's genuinely good especially for small users. Also, for many people AWS is perfectly fine, I still use them off and on myself. I only allege it's a "waste of money" in specific situations, but that's also largely subjective of course depending on what's important to you/the client.

I'm not well at the moment, perhaps your ML model has flu?!!

However the paper is submitted, like a folder on a cloud drive, just have them include a folder with PDFs/abstracts of all the citations?

They might then fraudulently produce papers to cite, but they can't cite something that doesn't exist.

Even if you could retrieve all citations (which isn't always as easy as you might hope) to validate citations you'd also have to confirm the paper says what the person citing it says. If I say "A GPU requires 1.4kg of copper" citing [1] is that a valid citation?

That means not just reviewing one paper, but also potentially checking 70+ papers it cites. The vast majority of paper reviewers will not check citations actually say what they're claimed to say, unless a truly outlandish claim is made.

At the same time, academia is strangely resistant to putting hyperlinks in citations, preferring to maintain old traditions - like citing conference papers by page number in a hypothetical book that has never been published; and having both a free and a paywalled version of a paper while considering the paywalled version the 'official' version.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.04142

I imagine the sign-off date of 2008, the lack of very simple to apply mobile css, and no https to secure the downloads (if it had it then it would probably be SSL).

This speaks to me of a project that's 'good enough', or abandoned, for/by those who made it. Left out to pasture as 'community dev submissions accepted'.

I've not bothered to look, but wouldn't surprise me if the UI is hardcoded in assembly and a complete ballache to try and change.

That means that yes, it will probably by more expensive than before this raise, but no, not nearly as much as today.

It's fair to say January was the first month of the Roman calendar; despite it having formerly been March.