Agree. It is unlikely the manager did this out of pettiness. He probably got pressured by his L7/L8 to fire someone for his org to meet the URA goal. He made the obvious choice and picked the guy applying for internal transfer. Why lose two people when you could just lose one?
The claim isn't that the phone is competitive on a feature or spec level to new phones, but that those happy with the old feature set can continue to use them.
Of course the battery is a consumable part and you can't expect that to continue functioning well indefinitely.
The Jeopardy thing was pretty brilliant in a sense - wrangling an episode of free advertising from one of the most popular game shows. A memorable episode at that!
Side note, the term “gas fee” is a nice example of how crypto projects pick needlessly obtuse vocabulary. It’s a transaction fee. There’s no “gas” involved. Why call it that?
Perhaps I’m jaded but my feeling is that using plain terms would reveal the emptiness of the space. A non technical person can see that a $200 “transaction fee” is a rip off.
Since you asked, here's where the terminology comes from.
The Ethereum VM has a bunch of different opcodes, some physically more costly than others. To account for this, each opcode has its own "gas cost." Storing a value costs much more gas than adding two values.
The gas price is the current price in ETH for one unit of gas. The gas price fluctuates with demand.
The transaction fee is the total ETH paid for your transaction. If you have a complex transaction that executes a lot of expensive opcodes, you will have a higher transaction fee than someone doing something simpler, even though you're both paying the same gas price.
Sounds like the quote from the article is using the term "gas fee" to refer to the overall transaction cost. At least I don't see any reason why someone would specifically car about the gas fee portion of the overall fee in the context of losing most of the money in the refund process.
Users focus a lot on the gas price since it's a consistent indicator of the cost to transact, so they've tended to use the terms "gas fee" and "transaction fee" interchangeably. Your transaction fee is used entirely to buy gas, which is spent in running your transaction.
The point of the advice is to come up with a reasonable division of responsibilities that work for your partnership, rather than accepting the default agreement handed to you by the state without even understanding what it is.
It's truly amazing that a product with the reach of Lichess can be run so cheaply. Comments here criticizing the hosting costs extremely myopic - dev time isn't free, and doing a rewrite to chase down hosting savings isn't necessarily a good call.
I just signed up for a monthly donation. I complain about the ad supported internet all the time, but had never donated to LiChess. This thread is a good reminder of how far dollars to support projects like this can go.
FWIW, in the earlier days of lichess, IIRC when it had barely broken the Alexa top 10,000 threshold, lichess ran on like 2 boxes despite serving millions of users.
There's a good chance that many AWS slinging devs here have not actually had to deal with the volume of traffic that lichess sees. Half a mil yearly to run the entire lichess infrastructure, including dev salary and providing stockfish analysis for every user for free takes an insanely efficient setup that most big tech companies could only dream of.
While we're in the topic of impressive technological achievements, it's probably also worth mentioning how crazy it is that just a few decades ago, Deep Blue running on a supercomputer was the state of art in chess analysis, and nowadays we can just casually say, oh lichess runs stockfish on users' phones via wasm to cut on server costs.
