The argument they're making is at one point the drivers were making more money and could afford to buy a new vehicle or whatever. Then because of fare reductions and therefore reductions in pay they're now saddled with debt and can't afford housing.
> Who's not receiving healthcare right now that would be ultimately saved by the government?
People not receiving basic preventative care with problems that are only going to snowball until emergency services can try to treat a much more complex situation in the future?
> Secondly let's cut the hyperbole and have a rational conversation about this.
You could have maybe had a point by quoting "but the market will win", but "Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare" is literally what's at stake. What exactly do you think the downsides of people not being able to afford healthcare are?
One is happening right now, the other has a ton of evidence in every other developed country that the downsides are workable.
Yes it will be complicated, and yes, even if healthcare is guaranteed to all, profit motive is still an important driver for efficiency and innovation.
All of that, but it's still irrelevant to your dismissal of actual deaths due to our healthcare system as "appeal to emotion nonsense".
Making an emotional appeal is not inherently nonsense, so you will have to provide a little more of an argument as to why it's not a valid point to make.
This would basically be the game-changer for building backends on lambda.
The absolute key and most valuable piece in most backends is the persistent datastore. I absolutely want to build functional stateless business logic on lambda, but I absolutely will not, no matter the gain from not having to manage servers, have my database be dynamodb or any other non-RDBMS, for any serious application in 2017.
Why not? Plenty of serious companies use DDB or MongoDb or plenty of other databases for their "serious applications"... this seems like a rule based on a bad experience. Would love to hear about it.
Why not? Well, a caveat: I will always use an RDBMS when the data is inherently relational. In a "serious application" (I realise the term serious is hyperbolic here and I shouldn't have used it) this is true most of the time.
If it weren't true, then of course I might consider using DynamoDB or similar. But I think these situations are few and far between.
I'm often wrong though and happy to learn about some counter examples if you have any / have my assumptions corrected.
> The "interesting" part is how to secure user credentials to login to the RDS instance, and manage connection pools etc, but it's not that difficult
You can run your RDS instances and your Lambda's in the same private VPC. It doesn't secure your credentials per se, but it does prevent anyone else from accessing your database with Lambda.
The "problem" with putting Lambdas into a private VPC is that then you need to do NAT, which means permanent infrastructure (NAT gateways, failover, scaling...). It can be done but there are more headaches than with a pure serverless solution. Unless things have changed since the last time I looked at this stuff.
You just need a private subnet, not a whole separate VPC. You still need NAT to get outbound access, but instead of running a random EC2 instance for the NAT, AWS now has a NAT you can deploy with a click or API call. You still pay for it, but it's at least much easier to set up and there's no maintenance. I assume they have redundancy and failover and such built in also.
In 2015, the U.S. provided more than $8 billion in assistance to 47 sub-Saharan countries; and USAID maintains 27 regional and bilateral missions in Africa.
USAID "assistance" to Africa and other countries is more of a gimme to the US big agriculture lobby than to Africa. The US pays big agriculture to send food and agriculture equipment to Africa and other countries. The temporary food abundance often destroys the country's ability to build up its agriculture. Also, it comes with strings attached where the country has to use patented seeds in order to get the aid, making the local farmers dependent on sending money to Monsanto every year - this happened in Haiti and Monsanto is doing it in Africa as well.
Also, USAID is infamous for spreading money around in order to destabilize governments who do not follow the US's dictates.
This notion that USAID is some benevolent aid program is ridiculous. It is a brutal instrument of US foreign policy and big business, cloaked in a very thin veil of liberalism/charity/humanitarianism.
Sure American companies benefit, sure there's some fraud, sure some of it is a foreign policy decision in the US best interests. But a lot of good is done.
Because West is stealing gazillion times more from Africa in return. When you refuse, war and/or sanctions follow to cripple your country. Then they can loot in peace. You seriously think USA is just helping out of their good hearts?
Alas, if only it was even a zero-sum game were eg Africa only loses what the USA steals from them.
The reality is far bleaker---but also more hopeful: rich countries don't benefit from (causing) bad conditions in poor countries, at least nearly not as much as the bad conditions cost the poor countries.
Instability is profitable to rich countries. That's a well-known fact. Those bad conditions were artificially craeted by colonisers. Colonisers who still refuse to exit Africa because the only way they know how to make money is through exploiting African countries.
'The best time to buy is when there is blood on the streets' - Baron Rothschild.
I don't know, lots more companies are investigating in stable China than they ever did when Mao's reigned with open terror.
And also more than in less stable countries.
China isn't a profitable country to the US. China fate is in their hands. That's why they are even able to kick out big US companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Uber.
South Africa is very a profitable country to the West, not the other way round. It was even more profitable during the dark days of apartheid. That's why USA was sponsoring apartheid government with intelligence and arms. Google about Mandela arrest and CIA's involvement. They even listed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Even when he was President, he was still listed as a terrorist. US only removed him from the terrorist list few years ago.
