CheezyWeezle @ CheezyWeezle @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

109

Joined

2 yr. ago

SLA contracts can have a plethora of stipulations, including fines and damages for missing SLO. It really depends on how big and important the customer is. For example, you can imagine government contracts probably include hefty fines for causing downtime or data loss, although I am not involved with or familiar with public sector/ government contracts or their terms.

You can imagine that a customer that is big enough to contract a cloud provider to build new locations and install a bunch of new hardware just for them, would also be big enough to leverage contract terms that include fines and compensation for extended downtime or missing SLO.

I work at a data center for a major cloud provider, also not AWS

Right.

Left.

Hahaha ok then show me how the proof is flawed? You will have a LOT of mathematicians and scientists extremely interested in your proof.

Also, I learned this stuff in high school, but I went to college a decade ago so... maybe when you get done with math 253 and get into some higher level courses that cover complex analysis, you will change your tune.

Wikipedia IS indeed great for mathematics, as is a youtube video from university professors who teach and apply these mathematics. Exactly what is wrong with a youtube video featuring high level math professors teaching concepts about mathematics? You just keep saying "durr your only defense is a youtube video" when it literally is not "my only defense" it is just a single source I used to prove you wrong. You never gave a rebuttal to my point, just tried to attack the source. You say you know about the video and the concept, but you still make false and baseless claims that I already proved wrong. You are simply butthurt that you were wrong.

Lmao you replied to me in the first place, exactly how am I trying to get your attention? I already had it from the beginning...

You gripe about the merits of a youtube video (which I only linked to because I'm not gonna spell the whole damn proof out for you here), and you tell me to go read wikipedia? I'm guessing you are just being sarcastic there, because if not... sheesh. Yikes. Oof, even.

You are the one devolving to ad hominem. You haven't addressed a point I have made in your last two comments. You seem to think that a YouTube video is some lowly source that doesn't warrant merit. How sad then that you were proven wrong by a youtube video. YOU are the one who lacks any defense because you KNOW you were wrong, and by failing to address my points with facts you are proving that point.

Me citing a youtube video proved your statement wrong and this is your response.

Guessing you failed the class you were studying this in? Definitely doesn't sound like you remember much.

You are literally proving my point. You have used at least three different definitions when using the word "infinity". THAT is what I mean when I say you need to define what is being referred to by "infinity". It is not a single concept in mathematics.

To address your specific points:

ℵ₀ is the cardinality of countable infinities like natural numbers, rational numbers, etc.

If you attempt to find the summation of an infinite series, you approach infinity.

I never claimed that ℵ₀ is the summation of a set. You base so much of your commenr on a claim I never made.

I said that the natural numbers can be EVALUATED to either infinity or -1/12 and I made sure to define what I meant by infinity to be ℵ₀. If you think that it is incorrect that the natural numbers can be evaluated to -1/12, you have no place trying to correct others on mathematics. Just watch this eleven year old video by Numberphile for proof.

Your fundamental misunderstanding and flip-floppong between definitions of infinity male my point glaringly clear here.

ℵ₀, the infinity that represents the cardinality of natural numbers, would not be "any infinity" in the set of hyperreal numbers. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of infinitea if you cannot point to a specific number that "bounds the natural numbers" because that number is ℵ₀ and can be pointed to. It is the only countable infinity. Bring in irrationals and now it is uncountable, because there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. You can never reach 2 if you counted every number between 1 and 2. The cardinality of irrational numbers is ℵ1, a distinctly different and larger infinity than ℵ₀.

Sets like naturals and rationals may have the same cardinality, but they are not functionally the same. Cardinality is just one attribute they share. The powers of 10 cannot be analytically continued to -1/12 like the natural numbers can. Therefore they are functionally different.

The "problem" is defining what you mean by "infinite" specifically. Infinite is an adjective that you can assign to a set of numbers, and the "infinity" would be the summation of that set, but what set are we talking about? Is it all natural numbers? Rational numbers? Real numbers? Even numbers? Powers of 10? These are all different infinities with different properties. Some can give very odd results, especially with analytic continuation. The set of natural numbers {1,2,3,...} can be evaluated to infinity (ℵ₀) or -1/12. You have to get more specific when dealing with infinite numbers; you need to define what infinity is when you work with it.

Just put ℵ₀ as it's probably what you were intending anyways (Aleph 0 is a number that basically represent all of the countable numbers [1,2,3,4...] put together, the "smallest infinite number")

Don't stand... Don't stand so... Don't stand so close to me...

He doesn't plan on moving out

Lmao are you actually on tranquilizers or something? I literally, objectively, and demonstratively did not write that. You utter fool, you buffoon, you silly silly person, I am not the writer of the comment at the top of this chain. You are actually arguing with the wrong person.

Exactly how is my perspective limited when I am literally empathizing with the perspective of someone else?

That explanation came after the fact. The original comment is a reply to the original post, which does not include any of that context. You need to learn how the progression of time works before you try to talk down to me about reading comprehension, because you can't even comprehend what order things arrived in.

If you can't understand why your post comes across as potentially saying people should support Israel then you probably shouldn't be speaking out on issues like this.

When you say to someone, "Oh, you support [thing]???" In a negative way, and that thing is something that is diametrically opposed to another thing, it is almost always going to come across as implying support for the diametrically opposed thing. Your reply then comes off as a very bad faith response at best, if not a full stumble into narcissism.

Well it's pretty simple to understand that Israel is supported by many western countries, and there are many others who do not support Israel and/or those western countries. Those western countries will support Israel and push their influence onto them, so anyone who wants to oppose the influence of either Israel or any of those western countries will have an incentive to support Iran in the conflict. What you have there is the same set of conditions that led to the world's previous global conflicts.

It was reported by AP https://apnews.com/article/iran-explosions-israel-tehran-00234a06e5128a8aceb406b140297299

Yet DeLorean Motor Company figured out how to do it 40 years ago, and designed a much cooler looking vehicle with it...

By removing the language of "private" from the feature they can now sell your data without having to tell you about it