lclarkmichalek

I don’t think the article you cite supports your point with confidence you convey. Yes other dimensions can complicate deployment, but incentives to work around those issues are high, given the cost of GPUs

Isn’t it a fairly natural (and useful) capitalist outcome that as prices rise incentives to increase supply increase? What’s technocratic about responding to a demand change?

Hilarious. The code being produced previously was crap - it was just your crap. Baseline agents produce something similar, but can at least be guided, durably, towards producing less crap code.

In absolute terms, yep. In marginal terms, not so much. See also: paradox of value

Highways are pretty safe. The road is designed from start to finish to minimise the harm from collisions. That’s not true of urban streets

I think if you regulated coal on a linear no threshold risk model, you'd find the costs to be somewhat closer.

There's also the converse argument, to governments that look to infrastructure as the secret to all prosperity - America succeeds without infrastructure, somehow.

Natural monopolies exist, for sure. Your insurance example is odd though - insurance markets are generally highly competitive. The recent cases where we’ve seen a loss of competition in the market (CA home insurance, for example) have been driven by regulators imposing price controls.

The issue with healthcare is that providers have leverage over insurers, not that there is a lack of competition for insurance.

The usual issue is the addition of control loops without much understanding of the signals (CPU utilization is a fun one), and the addition of control loops without the consideration of other control loops. For example, you might find that your cross region load balancer gets into a fight with your in-process load shedding, because the load balancer's signals do not account for load shedding (or the way they account for the load shedding is inaccurate). Other issues might be the addition of control loops to optimize service local outcomes, to the detriment of global outcomes.

My general take is that you want relatively few control loops, in positions of high leverage.

What does this have to do with the topic being discussed?

There is a limit on reliable usage of the FS. Call it what you want. The user doesn't particularly care.

I think a fair few of them were created because they knew a bit too much about FOQS

You rather explained the value prop of this product then. The benefits of isolation without the 1 business day wait.

Personally, there's no way I'd want a customer initiated operation to trigger something like terraform or mess with DB schemas. On the security side, it would significantly complicate the permissions structure from the application to the database. And on the performance side, I have absolutely no mental model for how operations like that scale, and how trivial of a DoS I'm exposing myself to. At the same time, I love the isolation (mostly operationally, the security & privacy side is also nice) that db-per-customer would bring. If this product helps bridge the gap, then it sounds good to me.