Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mulmen's commentslogin

It’s 12gb and two ARM instances now. If you can get one. They’re frequently out of capacity. They even suspended the over-provisioned legacy instances.

In paygo mode I still get 4. Their cost calculator also calculates with 4 free ones.

There's a 0.0% chance I trust my credit card number to Oracle. The Free Tier page says up to 2 VMs with 12GB of RAM.

   Compute
   Arm Compute Instance

   Arm-based Ampere A1 cores and 12 GB of memory usable as 1 VM or 2 VMs

   Always Free
   1,500 OCPU hours and 9,000 GB hours per month
https://www.oracle.com/cloud/free/

As opposed to google AI/gemini key catastrophes and aws billing adventures?

Jody Allen is the executor and trustee of Paul Allens estate. She is simply complying with his wishes.

If his wishes were to shut down the LCM+L, fire all its staff, and auction off its collection, why didn't he do that while he was still alive? To me it seems like the actions of a vindictive family member who wanted to destroy the best things her brother had created in his life.

This conversation is tiresome. It comes up every time the LCM is mentioned. Jody Allen is simply respecting her brother’s wishes.

Paul Allen had many projects. Only a handful were ever intended to outlast him. LCM was not one of them. He wanted his fortune liquidated and donated. That’s exactly what his sister is doing.


Thank you for saying this.

This is unfortunately true. He had plenty of time to set up a separate foundation and he certainly had the means to donate plenty of money to it. But he chose not to. I wish he had.

Partially.

> Is this the Living Computer Museum?

> We are not Living Computers, but in May of 2024 the Living Computers Remote Vintage Systems were acquired and transfered to us.

https://icm.museum/?faq


Yes, I’m surprised it has not been discussed more.

I submitted this because it appears to be something of a successor to Paul Allen’s Living Computers museum which I occasionally see mentioned in comments. I think we were all disappointed at how that ended so I was relieved to see this project is carrying the torch.


> Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 13th amendment specifically mentions penal labor as an exempt form of slavery.

Take your criticism to the authors of the 13th amendment, not the people who bothered to read it.


Setting aside textual analysis and how commas are used in the constitution, the point is that people claim not just that slavery is allowed, but that mandatory penal labor is slavery, and implicitly the same slavery that was ostensibly abolished.

So do you agree or not agree that mandatory penal slavery is an extension of 19th century and earlier American slavery. Because that's what the movement and rhetoric are saying. And removing the Exception Clause won't change the rhetoric, because the entire point is to argue "things haven't changed".

It's the same rhetoric that equivocates "wage slavery". All those things can, of course, fall under a literal definition of slavery. Just like all forms of misbehavior by politicians can be called corruption. We can say, well, Trump isn't doing anything every other politician hasn't done. Which can be literally true. But I choose not to play semantic games like that, because those semantic games are at least as likely to be used to excuse abuses as they are to prevent them. If you want reform, pursue reform. Note that many states have removed their state constitutional Exceptions Clauses which by itself resulted in zero changes to the status quo, because when you play semantic games there's always room to redefine things on-the-fly, or to find another semantic loophole. Every court knew what the Exceptions Clause actual, contextual meaning was, and can just as well redefine slavery or non-slavery to exclude or include penal labor. Semantic games don't change the real world, except insofar as they promote cynicism, confusion, and disengagement from substantive issues.


> So do you agree or not agree that mandatory penal slavery is an extension of 19th century and earlier American slavery.

I agree that mandatory penal slavery (as practiced in US prisons in the 21st century) is an extension of 19th century and earlier American slavery.


Ignoring externalities remains popular.

We live in a society. I can’t build a helipad on my roof in the middle of Seattle. Technically that’s a limitation on my personal liberty. We accept it because of the cost to the people around me.


Unfortunately it seems like considering the cost to those around you is becoming a dying art

Or just honor the deal. The only reason for doing this is Verisign’s bottom line.

> […] ability to use the ID as a proof of age or other attribute as needed

What attributes should require proof? Where do you draw the line?

Age?

Gender?

Race?

Religion?

Political party?

Citizenship?

> We'll get there eventually, but not before we try everything else first.

We got here by trying everything else first.

The “good old days” are now. Thousands of years of progress and blood delivered our liberal societies. Don’t give it up so easily.


Whatever society needs... this is why we have elections and stuff.

Really, the broader point is I'm tired of giving away massive chunks of my PII (SSN, DL copies, etc) instead of just having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims."

If we, collectively, decide we need age-gated websites, then let's enable that properly. I shouldn't have to give NYT a scan of my DL and my SSN to gain access.


> If we, collectively, decide we need age-gated websites

We haven’t decided this.

> having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims."

You’re literally trading liberty for convenience.

I understand your position. I just fundamentally disagree that the tradeoff you are so eager to make is worthwhile.


What liberty am I trading? The government already knows who I am.

They don’t know what you do.

Your failure of imagination doesn’t make national ID a good idea.

This is Chesterton’s Fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...


Given the voter suppression history I’m curious if that experience is consistent across location and racial dimensions.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: