Maybe. If the pushes are in the right direction it gradually moves the overall discussion in the way you want it to go.

Yes. I bought one for my daughter (11) and one for an older person who kept getting her laptop pwn3d. Given the number of parents/grandparents that no longer have the time or ability to have a stable system and just want a browser, this is the perfect solution for them.

I've had a few failures (Kreyos and the Neal Stephenson sword game) but the rest of about two dozen have given me exactly what they promised and I got some really nice items.

Libertarians claim that bad business practices will force bad companies out of business allowing good companies to prosper, but any time a person buys a product from a 'bad' vendor is their own fault for not doing enough research.

Perhaps, and maybe that's the problem. I'm sure they're growing at a really rapid rate. If you grow like that for 10 years, there's going to be a lot of amortized expenses that will catch up if you're growing that quickly every year.

when libertarians get treated the way they'd treat others in a libertarian utopia.

Caveat emptor.

If this were Amazon vs. rinkydink provider, I'd buy that. When it's Google vs. Amazon vs. Microsoft, they have the resources to slug this out for as long as they want.

That link wasn't there originally, nor (IIRC) did it say "estimated".

Given the new information, then it doesn't matter. AWS is running at some sort of loss, but the question is why are they running at a loss. Are they spending lots of money on new infrastructure and scoping out new locations for data centers? That all costs a lot of money to implement and it would show up as a loss. Given how well the rest of the company is doing (AMZN would have had a profit if it were not for AWS), it sounds like revenue from other Amazon operations is going to provide capital for AWS to continue building. AWS isn't going anywhere soon if they're continuing to build out at this rate. There will be a time when the demand starts to plateau and they don't need to spend quite so much every quarter to expand. At that point they start raking in the dollars.

Because it causes panic in the target countries, they flee through porous borders and spread the disease more. Other countries think the problem is fixed, never bother screening at airports or other border crossings and they still get in anyway.

How about this for a counter-question: Why aren't we quarantining Texas?

Yeah this. I can't find a source for this claim. According to Wall Street Journal, AWS' revenue is only a $1.2billion per quarter. It would have to be losing at least $500mil/quarter to make a $2 billion/yr loss. In other words, for every dollar you spend on AWS, they're really losing $.50 or so.

Their ISP and storage costs will increase to handle the new format and you have to pay for that somehow.

At least they have 4k content.

You're still failing at point #2. Why was there insufficient security? Ordinarily you'd think that the user had a poor password, but then you said this:

And what is precisely why you don't get this. This is an either/or case. Either there was a vulnerability on the part of the cloud vendor, or the end users handled their passwords improperly. Given the number of people involved, it seriously points to the former.

According to 'blame the victim' mentality, you shouldn't send your e-mail address around and it's your fault you're getting spam.

So when a cloud vendor says "we store your photos securely and have your privacy as our #1 goal" or whatnot, that's equivalent to putting photos in an envelope and putting them in a post office? I don't think so. Try another analogy.

It's not black and white at all. A crime was committed.

This is like the old joke of the guy going to the doctor and saying "my arm hurts when I do this" and the doctor says "then don't do it!". You're the doctor.