Posts by PermissionToSpeakPlease 24 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Aug 2017
"My little run around, which did just over 1400 miles in the last 12 months, cost 11k when I bought it and is now free of finance so costs nothing/month."
It costs a lot more than nothing - you forget the alternative world where you locked the 11K away at 5% and earn 550/year. So you're paying 40p/mile on your 1400 miles, even before adding insurance, maintenance and other running costs.
@Elongated Muskrat
Agree with you on the first 90%. However as a Dutchman residing in the UK for the last 25 years, I'm very sorry to have to tell you that even a "grown-up system of PR" doesn't stop politicians chasing populists policies - so our last elections from a couple of weeks ago... (and also having a national grid with significant difficulties in places)
"E7 still makes some sense given the load profile of our grid (and that's all Octopus Go is really)"
Go is indeed similar to the old E7/10 style tarrifs, but Intelligent Octopus is a bit more clever than that. It actively tries to seek out the "best" slots in which to charge, and isn't just limited to the standard off-peak hours. That's where smart meters have really enabled a whole new style of tarrif to exist.
I might not understand this fully, but I suspect that in your solution everthing that you track has to have that connectivity, so paying your £20 + (12 x £5) = £80/year for each thing you want to track.
Whereas their system allows you them pay pennies for the trackers, but maintaining a relatively low amount of base stations to pick them up.
There are going to be a lot more things to track than stations to build the network, so they're betting on these economics working out.
With ISPs you roughly get what you pay for though.
If you want a service with SLAs and pentalties, you can probably get it, but you'll be paying more than what you're paying for your Virgin connection.
As another VM customer, I would rather keep it as-is. If you force them (and others) into financial penalties for outages, then all prices would go up. I'd rather go with my existing and cheap backup plan (tethering over 4g phone connection)
Per core makes much more sense than per instance.
It's about paying for for the software to get through a certain workload in a certain time.
In your model of per-instance pricing, if I only had machines with limited amounts of cores and needed say 4 instances to get through that workload in a certain time, I would be paying 4 times as much than if I had bigger machine with more cores to throw at it. To run the same workload in the same time, with roughly equal amounts of hardware (except some motherboards etc).
You pay more if you use more cores because the software you license gets to do more.
"readers opine that hard-earned experience is a far better indicator of skill than vendors’ exams" (...) "Microsoft night be onto something this time with its mantra that “certs = credibility with employers = fatter paycheques”. "
As employers tend to not know how to test real skills, both can be (and too often are) true at the same time
"Since sep8 it has only dropped around $50. I would have expected much worse"
They haven't lost any customer data. They've only lost some data that they were selling anyway, nothing for their customers to be overly worried about. There's just a one-off cost involved to be seen to be doing something now, but other than that there shouldn't be too much impact on long-term proffitablity from this. (sadly).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
