HA! no.
What's being advocated by this '...NOT THINK... NOT MENTION...' is essentially racial pacifism. In theory, yes, we shouldn't perpetrate violence or war upon each other. But if those who seek to eliminate violence rely solely on pacifism, it leaves those with no such intentions to perpetuate war uncontested. Should people ignore genocide because they idealize a non-violent future?
The thought promoted by the OP (of this idea) seems to imply that by setting an example behavior based on our ideals, others, with no such ideals, will somehow be compelled to adopt them. I just can't imagine anyone actually thinks that's true.
A German citizen in 1940 doesn't want anyone to see murder in the world, so he sets an example by NOT THINKING and NOT MENTIONING murder. And millions of people get murdered by his fellow countrymen who don't share the same ideals.
Pacifism has it's place and is often respectable. But non-confrontational, silent pacifism is a holey personal journey and has little hope of having any influence outside oneself.
Holy bejeebus, people are defensive as all getup about this. WTF, people?!?
Do people think that the quote, "...it is very hard to even interview people who are 'white'..." is about the difficulty this person finds in sitting in a room across from a white person, chatting with him? I understood it to be a perception on this person's part that the efforts to increase diversity have created a condition where such a significant portion of their new hires need to be non-white or non-white-male that it's difficult to get on the interview schedule if you are. And my speculation is that this was an expression due to personal experience - perhaps this person tried to refer a friend and felt he was getting nowhere.
THEY ARE BULLET POINTS PEOPLE...
Going out on a limb, I'd say just about everyone here has seen a PowerPoint presentation with a slide full of what the presenter intends to be attention catching points that beg the question 'what's that about? do tell."
I'm going to play devil's advocate here with some plausible explanations. I don't know the author and wasn't there so this is purely speculative, but I love speculation, it's why my favorite sport is spelunking. I tried to do this with an imagined 'voice' of the presenter but it ended up being mixed with my own - whatever.
- "This is not work for white folks to lead"
--- We're all familiar with congressional committees composed of a group of old white men discussing the legal policy issues related to healthcare access for women. It's a sorry sight. Let's put it up there front and center, that has not and will not constitute and acceptable effort, so it can't happen in this case. Does this mean that white people can't be a party to diversity efforts? no. but really, what's a bigger risk/likelihood, no white people/men on a committee or all white people/men on a committee? yeah.
- "This is not about socio-economic class, mostly."
--- I'm guessing this has something to do with the culture of distorted libertarian ideals held by many in the tech space, and how easy it is to discount racial bias and claim racial indifference while laying the blame for lack of diversity on childhood access to tech and the statistical differences in access based on purely socio-economic demographics. So this is a point to avoid the argument that diversity isn't a tech problem, and that if society fixed schools and whatnot, tech would naturally become more diverse.
- "Why we refer our friends and family (or don't) are where a lot of the answers can be found."
--- If you're a white employee and all your friends are white and you work for a company that is highly dependent on employee network referrals for hiring, you're going to just get more white people.
--- "Even my conditioning has been conditioned" ... https://a.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm1glnnHKg1qbce9oo1.mp3
American (global) society is centuries deep in conditioning to value white people more highly than others, irrespective of the opinion-holder's racial identity.
- "33% is barely enough to change the culture."
--- I don't exactly know, but I would suspect that 33% is some arbitrary base target for a diverse workforce created by a group of advisers who were indicative of the reason for the 1st bullet point.
- "we need solidarity with our Asian friends and colleagues"
--- Asians are a minority. Asians have a singularly unique experience in tech-employment (although that's probably specific to Asian males). Let's not get bogged down in intra-minority finger-pointing. I suspect there are plenty of tech companies that point to their Asian-identifying employees when confronted (at least internally) with diversity questions, which probably doesn't satisfy non-Asian minorities.
- "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
--- There is a perception that historically, some successful women who have had to fight hard for their positions and put up with a great deal of crap from men along the way, have a tendency to reinforce the traditional barriers for subsequent aspiring female colleagues rather than aid in the dismantling of those barriers, due to a sense of personal fairness - sort of "I had it hard, why should you get to cruise in my wake?" or in defense of a space they perceive as arbitrarily limited by men - the thought potentially being "These men were cajoled into making room for one token female law partner at the firm so a rising female colleague is direct competition for my job." Highlight PERCEPTION and SOME please! If this is an actual, documented thing (I don't know?), I'd speculate that it's universal, and not specific to females or white females, but rather to the culture of numbers - meaning white men would do it too if put in the same position. So let's call it out in this presentation - We don't want that, we want understanding, supportive trailblazers, and those trailblazers in tech at this time are white women.
As for the business side, wow what a more rational conversation RE: growth, size, and manageable company cultures.
> Holy bejeebus, people are defensive as all getup about this. WTF, people?!?
It should be very easy to understand why people are upset about this.
> Do people think that the quote, "...it is very hard to even interview people who are 'white'..." is about the difficulty this person finds in sitting in a room across from a white person, chatting with him? I understood it to be a perception on this person's part that the efforts to increase diversity have created a condition where such a significant portion of their new hires need to be non-white or non-white-male that it's difficult to get on the interview schedule if you are. And my speculation is that this was an expression due to personal experience - perhaps this person tried to refer a friend and felt he was getting nowhere.
I believe most people here are correctly assuming the second interpretation. And both interpretations are indicative of a terribly toxic culture.
> THEY ARE BULLET POINTS PEOPLE...
Yes.
If there existed a slide half as hostile toward blacks as this slide is toward whites, would you not use the opportunity to sternly lecture us?
'Cause I've seen frenzies occur with out-of-context words before. And those were were far milder. And taken much further our of context.
Each time, the tech press produced weeks of articles lecturing us that the words alone are irreparably hurtful and damaging.
> - "This is not work for white folks to lead"
> --- We're all familiar with congressional committees composed of a group of old white men discussing the legal policy issues related to healthcare access for women. It's a sorry sight. Let's put it up there front and center, that has not and will not constitute and acceptable effort, so it can't happen in this case. Does this mean that white people can't be a party to diversity efforts? no. but really, what's a bigger risk/likelihood, no white people/men on a committee or all white people/men on a committee? yeah.
"This is extremely important work—that's why we have a department at our company devoted to it. We are constantly trying to expand this breadth and scope of this work, hence this presentation at your company.
"We want more talks and more exposure. We need more paid positions at more companies. And in this expanding sector, if you are white, you are not welcome to lead. You must help us, but in doing so, you must subordinate to us. And we'll feign shock if you suddenly seem uneasy or defensive."
> - "This is not about socio-economic class, mostly."
> --- I'm guessing this has something to do with the culture of distorted libertarian ideals held by many in the tech space, and how easy it is to discount racial bias and claim racial indifference while laying the blame for lack of diversity on childhood access to tech and the statistical differences in access based on purely socio-economic demographics. So this is a point to avoid the argument that diversity isn't a tech problem, and that if society fixed schools and whatnot, tech would naturally become more diverse.
"I don't care that poor white people don't have access to technology. I don't care that they are left out, too. I don't care that our policies would specifically hurt them further. This isn't about helping poor whites."
> - "Why we refer our friends and family (or don't) are where a lot of the answers can be found."
> --- If you're a white employee and all your friends are white and you work for a company that is highly dependent on employee network referrals for hiring, you're going to just get more white people. --- "Even my conditioning has been conditioned" ... https://a.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm1glnnHKg1qbce9oo1.mp3 American (global) society is centuries deep in conditioning to value white people more highly than others, irrespective of the opinion-holder's racial identity.
“It’s morally wrong to prefer one ethnicity over another. That’s why we specifically exclude whites from leadership. It’s morally wrong to believe the voices of one ethnicity are more trustworthy. That’s why we explicitly disregard everything whites say on account of white privilege.
> - "we need solidarity with our Asian friends and colleagues"
--- Asians are a minority. Asians have a singularly unique experience in tech-employment (although that's probably specific to Asian males). Let's not get bogged down in intra-minority finger-pointing. I suspect there are plenty of tech companies that point to their Asian-identifying employees when confronted (at least internally) with diversity questions, which probably doesn't satisfy non-Asian minorities.
"Whites are slightly overrepresented in tech. We consider this to be an enormous problem. Asians are far, far more overrepresented in tech, but don't you dare be diverted by that. Our enemy is white people, not the overrepresentation of an ethnicity."
great story bro. I get it, you took offense to me taking 'devil's advocate' - look, it was just a figure of speech and I don't want to discriminate against your sensitive sense of fairness, so we'll split it; I'll take the figurative half and you can keep the literal half that you've already claimed.
but seriously, you're use of unattributed quotes is confusing. Is this supposed to be cited material or something you just wish you were citing?
Now I know why Stack Exchange folks are such nazis about formatting.
If one can download a percentage for free each month - 5% in this case, and the price of storage is dirt-cheap, then couldn't one just dump empty blocks in until the amount desired for retrieval falls under the 5% limit? In this case, if one wants to retrieve 63.3 GB, uploading 1202.7 GB more for a total of 1266 GB, 63.3 GB of which represents just under 5%. There's no cost for data transfer in and the monthly cost at $0.007/GB would be just $8.87. And that's just for the one month because everything wanted would be coming out the same month.
Has anyone tried this or know of a gotcha that would exclude this?
And I realize that for the OP's situation, it wouldn't have mattered since he thought he was going to get charged a fraction of this.
I believe that objects cannot be transitioned into the Glacier Storage class until 60 days after their upload date. So at the very least, you will have 60 days of latency (and thus ~$20 of monthly fees) before you can extract your other data.
Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if the 5% is also based on a storage measurement that is pro-rated for the month. So I would let the 1200 GB of data sit in Glacier Storage for another month before extracting anything, just to be (more) safe.
That's possibly a way to trick the system, but storing 63.3 GB in S3 would cost OP less than 2$ for standard availability and less than 1$ for reduced availability, not counting request costs (which are not as surprising as the hidden costs in question here). At this scale you should just store it in S3 and be done with it.
sure, I wasn't intending to suggest this as a good premeditated maneuver, but there are probably other individuals out there who have found themselves in a similar position to the OP and considering their predicament.
If you've gotten into Glacier for the wrong reason, you may already be in the trap, and you can quickly rip yourself free and take a bunch of skin, spend almost 2 years ever so gently prying yourself free, or maybe a third way. That's my angle here. Also, traps don't have to be laid for someone to feel like he's in one, so I'm not putting that on AWS.
The cheapest way out seems to be to just grab 5%/month over 20 months, but that's a lot of sustained effort and contact with the service. So I could see a trick like this as a potential middle ground, at three months and ~$30 according to previous comment's details.
