11–20 of 110 posts
> they didn't want to pay for storing all of those recipe and cooking videos twice...videos are big and space is expensive... And yet... from people who never pay the bills for anything, all I ever hear is 'space is cheap, computing is cheap, blah blah blah'. It's all 'cheap' until you have to pay for it.
It isn't free, but it's certainly cheaper than killing your entire company.
> they didn't want to pay for storing all of those recipe and cooking videos twice...videos are big and space is expensive... And yet... from people who never pay the bills for anything, all I ever hear is 'space is cheap, computing is cheap, blah blah blah'. It's all 'cheap' until you have to pay for it.
In this case they destroyed the company instead of just saying 'space is cheap' and paying for it. It isn't free, but it's certainly cheaper than killing your entire company.
> they didn't want to pay for storing all of those recipe and cooking videos twice...videos are big and space is expensive... And yet... from people who never pay the bills for anything, all I ever hear is 'space is cheap, computing is cheap, blah blah blah'. It's all 'cheap' until you have to pay for it.
If you are getting anything out of it net greater than it and there isn't a better use for it keeping it is worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case they destroyed the company instead of just saying 'space is cheap' and paying for it. It isn't free, but it's certainly cheaper than killing your entire company.
Well, they clearly didn’t realize that they would end up deleting their original data because they had tried to skimp on storage…
Being cheap about this is just likely to lead to more bugs and cost in debugging later anyway. There are tradeoffs and exceptions, but there's a reason the saying exists.
Anyone know what product she's referring to?
This post goes out of its way to avoid naming the site in question.
If you know the answer to the above question, think carefully before providing that name here or anywhere. Ask yourself how invoking their name specifically contributes value to this story. Ask yourself why you consider it right to shame them by name, when OP did not consider it right to do so.
If you can’t think of a reason that positively improves the world for us all, and all that you’ve got is “we should hold them up as an example for others to avoid”, this post already does so and without doxxing them.
If you truly feel that it’s necessary, proceed, but I think honoring the author’s clear intention to avoid naming them is the appropriate decision here as well.
This is why I don't trust my own videos/photos/documents/notes/etc. to "the cloud". How many examples like this have there been where peoples stuff just disappears one day with no way to bring it back? More than I can count. Though, saying I don't trust my files to the cloud is not the same as saying I don't use the cloud. I keep two copies of all of my files in 2 physical location. However, both of those physical lo…
Exactly, the cloud should be used as a secondary backup, not a primary device. Using it as the latter is no better than you keeping everything in one place at your house.
Not their house. Their neighbour's house. How long ago did this xkcd came out? https://xkcd.com/1150/
Anyone know what product she's referring to?
Dear HN, This post goes out of its way to avoid naming the site in question. If you know the answer to the above question, think carefully before providing that name here or anywhere. Ask yourself how invoking their name specifically contributes value to this story. Ask yourself why you consider it right to shame them by name, when OP did not consider it right to do so. If you can’t think of a reason that positively…
Anyone know what product she's referring to?
Dear HN, This post goes out of its way to avoid naming the site in question. If you know the answer to the above question, think carefully before providing that name here or anywhere. Ask yourself how invoking their name specifically contributes value to this story. Ask yourself why you consider it right to shame them by name, when OP did not consider it right to do so. If you can’t think of a reason that positively…
Very disinclined in actuality, since this is a company providing a service to people who have handed over custody of their personal data (It sounds like very high-value data! Cooking videos aren't easy to make!) under the assumption that they will get something out of the deal, i.e., the videos would be hosted and they would be warned if they were going to be deleted (or at least apologized to if they were deleted by accident and not lied to).
>>> If you can’t think of a reason that positively improves the world for us all, and all that you’ve got is “we should hold them up as an example for others to avoid”, this post already does so and without doxxing them.
Hmm, how about "we should hold them up as an example for users to avoid".
Doxxing doesn't exist for corporations, it only exists for individual people. The proper term of art here is whistleblowing or journalism. And the reason the author avoided mentioning the company name is probably to cover someone's ass who signed an NDA.
> someone who really gave a damn got their hands dirty Although this person is the hero of the story, I feel obligated to point out that in today's JIRA-driven "what have you done for me lately" close-the-stories what's-your-velocity we're-about-to-downsize-so-you'd-better-prove-you're-valuable culture of "efficiency", the person who did this either had a LOT of job security (as in, compromising photos of the CEO in…
On the flip side, every once in a while in the fish-shell GitHub repo we get an idiot that files an issue titled “is this even maintained?” because there is a non-zero number of opened issues (or I file a bug on GH and the the repo owner closes it immediately as “will revisit later” so the issue count doesn’t go up).
It’s not a technology problem. It’s a people problem.