Hacker News Reader

That makes it harder for everyone though where companies like Apple should proxy and/or cache those requests to their own internal version rather than hitting that S3 bucket every time. Requiring requester payment would mean it would only really be used by corporations where the author clearly wants a service open to anyone without having to open an AWS account to pay.

View on HN

Make the bucket buyer-pays, but offer Torrent links as well. Businesses doing CI will pay for S3 usage so they don't have to deal with torrents, end-users will get free torrent access, everybody wins.

I just skimmed AWS requester pays and it seems that you can't set the price, the requester always pays only the AWS's download cost, so why bother setting it as requester pays at all if it doesn't bring you anything?

It brings you the absence of GET requests and the bandwidth charges on your AWS bill. In this case, 45TB a day is going to add a lot to an AWS bill, you can shift that cost to the user that's downloading the files from you.

The S3 bucket is a repository for the models which get downloaded at runtime it seems so a torrent isn't really a good fit for a drop in replacement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com