The logic error in the article is that “both things can be true at once”: Figma could have worked on optimising their spend, but this might be just scratching at the surface. Similarly, they could have “looked at where the money is going” and simultaneously be unable to do anything about it other than sign a discount contract.
I don’t run a Minecraft server, I manage cloud resources at government departments. They all overspend, they all “tried” to fix it, and then they all gave up and signed a contract because that’s a simple “big bang” solution.
I don’t run a Minecraft server, I manage cloud resources at government departments. They all overspend, they all “tried” to fix it, and then they all gave up and signed a contract because that’s a simple “big bang” solution.