Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–178 of 178 posts

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#171

Post by oh_sigh »

lmm wrote: post #150
oh_sigh wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't cry for me, I'm a low quality poster(or rather, I tend to match the quality of posts I respond to, which are frequently low quality posts) who dang has had to put in place multiple times. But I will say that I originally created this username many years ago to at least try to rebut ridiculously wrong things which were popularly accepted in the comments section, or right things which were down voted, so I am use…

A poorly stated truth contributes less to the discussion than a well-formed but incorrect post. Or at least, the end result is that I find the discussion here more valuable than on most of the web (as much as it's declined under dang's niceness policies).

I disagree.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#172

Post by boulos »

noisem4ker wrote: post #153
boulos wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$6k for 600T fully assembled backblaze storage pod: https://www.backuppods.com (no affiliation, just pointing out that ~$12k isn't a massive amount).

Note that hard drives are not included. 1000TB / 8TB = 125 HDDs 125 * $200 = $25k

Aww! Damn my quick posting (and too good to be true!). Thanks.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#173

Post by weberc2 »

rhizome wrote: post #169
weberc2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs, and that regulation typically increases downstream costs, I think the onus is on NN-proponents to prove why the reverse is true.

> Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs Can you go into a little more detail about "given" here? I'm not under the impression that it's true.

If business A can make a widget for $1.00 less than business B, business A will in all likelihood pass some of that savings onto the consumer to incentivize them to buy widgets from business A. Business A makes a little extra and the customer saves a little extra.

Again, this is the typical scenario; there are certainly cases that don't fit this mold, but they would be atypical.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#174

Post by nickpsecurity »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #167
Veratyr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Step 3: Move it off of there when traffic is low or overnight if system doesn't go offline overnight. Where are you moving it to? You think that even if you manage to hack into a "supercomputing center" that nobody's going to notice 1PB of storage filled with GIFs?

Having worked in a supercomputing center for a detector at the LHC, yeah, you could probably get away with storing a few hundred TBs for a short period of time without anyone noticing or caring. A whole petabyte might be pushing it.

And I learned about it from you people. All of them said security was lax. Most of them said they personally were using the supercomputer for their own stuff at some point.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#175

Post by toomuchtodo »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #174
toomuchtodo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in a supercomputing center for a detector at the LHC, yeah, you could probably get away with storing a few hundred TBs for a short period of time without anyone noticing or caring. A whole petabyte might be pushing it.

And I learned about it from you people. All of them said security was lax. Most of them said they personally were using the supercomputer for their own stuff at some point.

What's this "you people" bub? :) in this case, it's not a security issue, it's a resource accounting issue.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#176

Post by nickpsecurity »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175
nickpsecurity wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I learned about it from you people. All of them said security was lax. Most of them said they personally were using the supercomputer for their own stuff at some point.

What's this "you people" bub? :) in this case, it's not a security issue, it's a resource accounting issue.

People working in and around HPC centers. Obviously. :)

And no, it's both accounting and security issue. One guy I know who does security in ASIC's that stole HPC time in the past did it by modifying the accounting system to not show his jobs. It was easy as it wasnt designed to stop accounting fraud by hackers.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#177

Post by skinnymuch »

afpx wrote: post #127
skinnymuch wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOL does a lot of advertising. Yahoo has a ton of eyeballs. Verizon has data. That already is a good match for all three. Yahoo is still close to a top 5 site. Definitely top 10. Yahoo also owns some advertising infrastructure like Brightroll and Flurry. I have experience in Brightroll myself. It's not that rare to run across people spending close to $100K a week on Brightroll. It wasn't a bad move at all. They were…

If Verizon can execute, it could even be bigger, given that they also have the FCC in pocket, and they have both mobile carrier data and snooped home internet data.

Yeah def they can be a legitimate powerhouse with web properties and ads. It's hard to guess how much revenue and profit Oath will be doing in 5 years. We won't know anything too soon since first Yahoo needs to be fully acquired and some time needed to adjust to Oath being the parent company.

Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality

#178

Post by rhizome »

weberc2 wrote: post #173
rhizome wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs Can you go into a little more detail about "given" here? I'm not under the impression that it's true.

If business A can make a widget for $1.00 less than business B, business A will in all likelihood pass some of that savings onto the consumer to incentivize them to buy widgets from business A. Business A makes a little extra and the customer saves a little extra. Again, this is the typical scenario; there are certainly cases that don't fit this mold, but they would be atypical .

The widget being a rivalrous good doesn't affect this?
Post reply on HN