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

Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#141

Post by TeMPOraL »

beerandt wrote: post #112
city41 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have lots of copyrighted content. Such as virtually every commercial retro video game ever made it seems. I personally think it’s great but surely companies aren’t too pleased? How does archive.org avoid being sued into oblivion?

As far as I know, they limit public access to basically any material with a complaint or request, but keep copies. They may do more, but that seems to be the default response. Which seems smart enough: minimize litigation costs while not losing content permanently via court orders or dmcas or similar threats. But it's frustrating for the wayback machine- where sites like Snopes and some newspapers have opted out of h…

> sites like Snopes and some newspapers have opted out of having their history published (after being accused of ghost edits to articles)

Is there any way to interpret this behavior as anything other than straight up admitting to being dishonest? Especially in context of accusations that could be easily disproved using the Wayback Machine... unless there is something to those accusations, that is.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#142

Post by TeMPOraL »

tommica wrote: post #122
gxon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter ought to have some kind of strikethrough feature. Allow users to mark that they no longer stand behind a tweet without completely deleting it.

What would be the incentive to use that feature over just deleting the tweet?

There wouldn't be, therefore tweets shouldn't be deletable after a set period of time.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#143

Post by TeMPOraL »

fireattack wrote: post #92
dwaltrip wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but they should also own up to their mistake. They flat out said "It won't be a deadly epidemic".

They made a tweet to explicitly say they deleted it because it's wrong. How is that not "owning up"?

Properly owning up would include keeping the mistake up, so that people reading the apology would actually know what they're owning up to. Without the original Tweet, they might be apologizing for mistyping "2+2=4" as "2+2=5", for all you know.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#144

Post by Paul-ish »

city41 wrote: post #101
mostlysimilar wrote: post #2

archive.org feels like an irreplaceable treasure, the Wayback Machine alone is a time capsule of our digital history. I donate to them monthly and know a lot of other people do as well, so I don't worry much about their financial stability. I'm more worried about external pressures taking content down. I hope the data is backed up six ways to sunday, and that somewhere there's a plan to make it all accessible if Inte…

They have lots of copyrighted content. Such as virtually every commercial retro video game ever made it seems. I personally think it’s great but surely companies aren’t too pleased? How does archive.org avoid being sued into oblivion?

There are exemptions to DMCA for certain content.

> Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/index.html

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#145

Post by blahyawnblah »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #137
phonon wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BackBlaze B2 is $5/TB/month Azure Archive is $2/TB/month ($1.68 if reserved) AWS Glacier Deep Archive is $1/TB/month GCP Cloud Storage Archive is $1.20/TB/month Of course, there can be i/o and network charges, and different levels of redundancy (but possibly bulk discounts)...but the bare storage costs for for 50 PB per year would be roughly $600k - $3 MM/y.

Aren't the costs of getting that data out of the backup much larger than the cost of keeping it in the first place, to the point that when you actually need to restore a large backup, it turns out it was better to have been managing it yourself? That's the impression I got from various HN comments on the topic over the years.

The cost is only there if you transfer out of aws. Something like glacier will have a retrieval time on the order of hours or days.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#146

Post by jonah-archive »

bits_n_bytes wrote: post #136
jonah-archive wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder when you don't make money, and everyone's not downloading the same things.

I understand money is tight for a non-profit, but why are bandwidth costs a gating factor? Both your upstreams, Cogent and Hurricane Electric, offer 100G ports at fiveish grand per month in carrier neutral DCs. Given that your budget is in the millions, an outlay of this magnitude doesn't seem wildly out of the question. If you can explain what the problems are in getting more bandwidth, I'd be more than happy to see…

Happy to chat in much greater detail over email if you like (in my profile) -- transit specifically is not generally our limiting cost (though of course in the context we operate in, every penny counts -- e.g. we run our own DCs, ambiently cooled, single-feed grid power with minimal backing, etc). We generally run very close to the edge, capacity-wise, in order to get the most out of what we have -- in this case, demand moved very quickly and we had to work a hardware deployment to catch up.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#147

Post by teekert »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #134
teekert wrote: post #131

I clicked this article to look for ways to contribute.. bandwidth. But there is no torrent/ipfs like method to help, just cash. I'd be happy to run a service that would help Wikipedia, archive.org, ddg (any service I believe in) decentralize. I always keep my Ubuntu torrents open for launch days and some beyond. I have a server running and I don't need my 50/50 fiber all the time. If I was a better software dev, I'd…

> just cash This is almost always the best and most efficient way you can help a cause. You donating infrastructure means donating them extra work - they'll need to integrate and keep track of it, as well as manage a relationship with you (in particular, a risk of problems with you or your service). Meanwhile, with extra cash, they can buy what they need and what integrates well, or pay the most effective specialists…

But I have bandwidth to share, not cash. I'm already at the lowest subscription level with my ISP. I understand the argument, but if there was a general technical solution this would be nice, right?

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#148

Post by TeMPOraL »

teekert wrote: post #147
TeMPOraL wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just cash This is almost always the best and most efficient way you can help a cause. You donating infrastructure means donating them extra work - they'll need to integrate and keep track of it, as well as manage a relationship with you (in particular, a risk of problems with you or your service). Meanwhile, with extra cash, they can buy what they need and what integrates well, or pay the most effective specialists…

But I have bandwidth to share, not cash. I'm already at the lowest subscription level with my ISP. I understand the argument, but if there was a general technical solution this would be nice, right?

That's true. Does such solution exist, though?

I had some hopes for Filecoin (i.e. a P2P system with monetary incentives attached to backing up other people's data, from one of the very few groups in the crypto space that don't look like scammers to me), but I haven't heard anything about it in a while.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#149

Post by sradman »

jl6 wrote: post #132

Mixed feelings here... I love the IA but I feel people should not use them as a streaming service. Their mission is preservation, and access is obviously part of that, but I would feel bad hammering them every day for general TV watching purposes.

I assumed that their bandwidth needs were due to their web crawler rather than serving cached content. I guess I’m basing that assumption on my own usage patterns.

Re: Thank you for helping us increase our bandwidth

#150

Post by pjc50 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #142
tommica wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the incentive to use that feature over just deleting the tweet?

There wouldn't be, therefore tweets shouldn't be deletable after a set period of time.

Given that a British "journalist" lost her house to legal fees after libelling someone and refusing to take the tweet down, I think there are reasonable reasons to want to take down libellous, abusive, dangerous, or wrong tweets without having to sue Twitter.

("Journalist" is in quotes because, while that was her job title, she specialized in abuse, libel, smears, and calls to murder, and I'm glad she lost the libel case)

Post reply on HN