The issue with this visualization is that it's not clear what the minutes are supposed to represent. Does 10 seconds to midnight imply 95% odds of nuclear annihilation within the next year?
The bulletin needs to perform a retrospective analysis to determine how good their predictions were in the past. As things stand it's amusing to see how their increments need to get smaller and smaller to avoid striking midnight.
The absolute values don't mean anything. They just move them closer or further to midnight depending on how likely we are to destroy ourselves this year.
It's normal to announce things long before they're actually available to end users. This is not some unique evil of the EU bureaucracy - if anything, it's very corporate of them.
You just don't get it. When it's announced by the EU, it's red tape PDF crunching soulless bureaucracy wasting our time. When it's said by a glorified CPA of an American unicorn startup it's the vision, innovation and triumph of entrepreneurial spirit.
You'd be surprised how many companies with infra that small have CTOs get consultant buzzword pilled into buying every SaaS under the sun nonetheless...
How many servers does Stack overflow run on? It’s not a good measure of data volume or criticality.
I think “expensive” here is basically relative to revenue/margin. Where margins are high, spending on Splunk (etc.) isn’t meaningful. Where margins are thin, it hurts.
Basically, the arguments here seem to reflect the markets and business model folks are working under. Some pay, some can’t and some won’t - all valid.
It's important to remember that modern social media is a complete assault on your dopamine receptors. If you take a look at your feed, a vanishingly small amount of the content Facebook belches up is created by your friends. Instead you're shown content that you're likely to interact with.
That's not to mention that people use social media as a substitute for personally reaching out to friends.
This reminds of an old joke told to all undergraduate economists:
A hundred-dollar bill is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks: "Didn't you see the money there?" The economist replies: "I thought I saw something, but I must've imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would've picked it up."
The bulletin needs to perform a retrospective analysis to determine how good their predictions were in the past. As things stand it's amusing to see how their increments need to get smaller and smaller to avoid striking midnight.