People died, yes. But there was no white supremacism. There was no Wall Street. It was just like any high street. It was triggered by an attempted rape.

> there was no white supremacism

People were murdered and homes and businesses destroyed by a white mob because they were black. How is that anything but white supremacy?

> There was no Wall Street. It was just like any high street.

It was one of the wealthiest black communities in america at a time. “Black wall street” was a nickname, not a literal description of a stock exchange.

> It was triggered by an attempted rape.

No, it was triggered by an attempted lynching of a black man. Or if you want to be more specific, because the community there stood up to protect the arrested man. It was triggered by a black community stopping a lynching.

Your assertions are an ahistorical revisionist fantasy.

My first business card when I was working for a tech company had an X.400 address on it. Nobody was memorising that. Or writing it down quickly.

You don't use any companies with a Twitter/X account? That must be tricky.

Voluntarily choosing to not spend money in X related orgs ≠ using services that use X related orgs. As a consumer, our options to vote with our dollar is limited, but that doesn't make it pointless. Real life is not binary and the sentiment that one cannot criticize a system which they partake in is a thought terminating cliche. One only needs to ask "for who does this reflexive thought terminating cliche benefit the most" to find the lede.

Thanks for that but it's unrelated to what the OP said which was "I find it unconscionable to do business with someone who would do business with Elon.".

Having an X/Twitter account is doing business with Elon. You could say only paid X accounts qualify for this, but I would imagine most brands have paid accounts.

YCombinator has an X account. I suspect the OP is already asking for his Hacker News account to be deleted.

$8m is a lot of money for us working stiffs, but it's about 0.03% of their 2025 profits.

Hindsight is 20/20. Not saying they did the right thing, but they may have had specific performance reasons for originally going with DynamoDB.

Of all the coal consumed per year, China uses half of it. They are not a green economy.

They are greening fast, and enabling greening of others through cost competitive supplies.

They also consume half of all coal consumed globally per year. They are in no way a green economy.

Not relevant to the question of which energy source makes sense to build in the year 2026. But sure China has many coal plants left over from 2003 when renewables was more expensive, nobody would dispute that this is a fact, however irrelevant.

Yes, we should definitely optimise for the most expensive form of electricity: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-solar-wind-p...

When reading an article written by Bjorn Lomborg, you should also do the effort to read the cited sources. This is not an ad hominem attack, just an observation. Do it and you will see.

>> Because it seems that for being so obsessed to be prepared for war the only ones affected are the working class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWijx_AgPiA

I've been on Backblaze for a few years now, ever since Crashplan decided it didn't want individuals to use its service any more.

It's always been just janky. A bad app that constantly throws low disk warnings and opens a webpage if you click anywhere on it. Being told the password change dialogue in the app doesn't work and having to use the website etc etc.

Just all round not an experience that inspires confidence. In comparison, Crashplan just worked.

But Crashplan also had an absolute abomination of a bloated, sluggish, Java-based client.

It was a bit, but I never found it as bad as Backblaze.

CrashPlan required, if I recall correctly, 1GB of RAM for every 1TB backed up. It got a bit unwieldy after a while, because I have multiple terabytes of photos and videos over many years.

These clients can't be that hard to write, surely?