whatpad

The "win in full as normal" guarantee is the weakness. What happens when the producer cannot meet the guarantee for lack of funds due to faulty or too-aggressive algorithmic chump choices?

However, given that hobbyist full-disclosure crypto ponzi schemes are a thing, probably the market has an appetite for anything.

Are you referring to:

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/vendor/...

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/plugin/...

> It's quite likely that "Go 2" == Go 1.15 or 1.16

That is Aug 2020 or Feb 2021 for generics.

That page offers services for personal use. Verizon isn't making an offer to provide services to businesses/government via that page.

The appropriate offer is here where you must contact a rep who is probably trained to inquire about the business's requirements: https://www.verizonwireless.com/biz/plans/business-unlimited...

Your argument would hold water if "victim vs perpetrator" were entirely black and white. Is Verizon not a partial victim for having an unreasonable customer that thinks $39/mo is sufficient for their mission critical communications bottleneck? Isn't Verizon partially a victim of politicians drumming up anger when the government itself contributed to the error by failing to read a contract?

You can't just assign the victim label and be done with your argument. There is nuance and shared responsibility.

Not everything is an exercise in identifying the victim, therefore the other is the perpetrator, therefore the 'victim' is absolved.

Verizon already pays for these services through taxes, and the government is not liable for damage to Verizon's property resulting from a wildfire, so why would extra money change hands upon such damage?

Your comment is glib and cute, but it really is a baseless fantasy when confronted with facts.

Armchair grandstanding.

If an EMT asks a bystander for help and he refuses, he did not commit a crime.

There is context to that promise of "unlimited". The government bought one cheap consumer-oriented cellular internet plan for their mission critical emergency communications. There is a bit of mismatch on the intended purpose of the offer. I'm sure you'll even find a disclaimer of liability and disclaimer of suitability/warranty in the contract. The government f'ed up, no way around it.

And I'd wager heavily that the government employees/contractors had ample budget to read the contract.

Does the fact that the government seems to have done nearly no due diligence regarding capacity planning play a factor in your criticism of Verizon? They relied on one emergency device with one communication link and thought $39/mo was sufficient apparently. That's silly and incompetent for any IT professional.

It is not Verizon's problem if the government signed up for the wrong sized plan. It is not Verizon's problem if the government did not shop around for the best deal.

It is Verizon's problem if the case can be made that $8/GB is gouging. However $10/GB is a very common price among contractless carriers such as Tracfone and Google, so $8/GBis certainly in the ballpark.

Does not offering a bulk discount equate to gouging? IDK.

This differs from the definition in the article. I think the article's definition is the significantly more common one for software engineering.

That is a 7 year old laptop.