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

Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#161

Post by luto »

f430 wrote: post #157

I wish there was a decentralized scalable version of Twitter, Facebook, Youtube. It would run off our mobile devices and PC sort of like bitorrent. I am aware of webtorrent (web based torrenting p2p) for videos and such but still nothing in production. IMHO, the next person that comes up with a highly scalable, decentralized, widely distributed mesh network of devices to securely transfer files between peers will not…

twitter: https://joinmastodon.org/

youtube: https://joinpeertube.org/

The fediverse checks many of the boxes you mentioned. While I personally enjoy using it, it still lacks usability for many people, I think.

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#162

Post by wongarsu »

biggc wrote: post #155
wongarsu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torrents are available here: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/repository_torrent/ Apparently it was 55TB two years ago. It's probably still somewhere in the realm of a smallish NAS and I bet a couple people on /r/datahoarders have it all downloaded. Hosting is a different matter. I'm not sure if there's some effort to have it available on IPFS or DAT

> 55 TB ... > smallish What a time to be alive

55 TB fits comfortably on 4 16TB HDDs. You can fit around 8 drives in a single tabletop NAS before you have to go either to multiple enclosures or rack mounting. Using that as a metric I would call anything below 100TB smallish.

Storage is indeed progressing a lot.

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#163

Post by beardyw »

marcinzm wrote: post #80
specialp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journals do have a value, but not the value that Elsevier extracts out of them to the tune of billions of dollars a year in profits. Facilitating peer-review, being selective, indexing content, archiving and copyediting does indeed cost money. If we had a world where there were a large number of people dealing with peer-review referee selection, managing correspondence for free, and copyediting for free we could easi…

>Journals do have a value, but not the value that Elsevier extracts out of them to the tune of billions of dollars a year in profits. Elsevier has a 37% profit margin which is insane.

I interviewed for a job at Elsevier near Camden Lock (London) years ago. I said the location was great if I decided to get a tattoo. Didn't get the job. Thank you Lord.

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#164

Post by TeMPOraL »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #77
TheTrotters wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they better than one place that has everything? (Asking in good faith)

Why don't we have one single webpage where all journalists write all their articles without any organization other than a search box? Content organization is key. And different research disciplines have different practices, different artifacts related to the article, different readership. We have ArXiv, BioRxiv and MedRxiv which all serve the same broad purpose, but specialised to math/physics/etc; biology; medicine.…

> Content organization is key.

It isn't, except in narrow domains where a strong taxonomy makes sense. The success of Google and social media platforms is built directly on this fact.

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#165

Post by jancsika »

Suppose Bob publicly claims to possess the Sci-Hub db.

Alexandra challenges this publicly by sending a bunch of randomized small "slices" of the db to be hashed.

Bob publicly broadcasts the requested hashes, and Alexandra publicly claims they all match. (Also, assume the hash-checker is publicly available and anyone who dares can use it to check their own copy of the db and verify Bob's hashes.)

If this is the extent of Bob's network activity, can Bob get in trouble in the U.S.?

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#166

Post by [deleted] »

meekmockmook wrote: post #91
rootsudo wrote: post #57

Why do we even allow twitter this power. Stop using twitter.

Our country would not be in this mess if antitrust laws were used to bust up Facebook, Google, and Twitter years ago. Our leaders were all but bribed by the VCs and their lobbyists to look the other way while our social norms and sense of right and wrong were destroyed by malicious algorithms.

[deleted]

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#167

Post by dredmorbius »

raverbashing wrote: post #108
wincy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When our daughter was born with a rare life threatening condition my wife used SciHub to read articles about her condition. While the doctors had merely skimmed the pages, my wife pored over them and found a suggestion of using a particular drug. After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it. It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us sh…

> It was strange how reticent doctors were to prescribe something and instead just told us she was going to die. If she’s believed to be terminal anyway, why not prescribe a relatively well known drug and see if it helps? Because according to EBM nothing exists and nothing works unless it's proven with a big RCT. Yes, it's ridiculous. Especially as in your case.

EBM: evidence-based medicine?

RCT: randomized controlled trial?

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#168

Post by generalizations »

wongarsu wrote: post #162
biggc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 55 TB ... > smallish What a time to be alive

55 TB fits comfortably on 4 16TB HDDs. You can fit around 8 drives in a single tabletop NAS before you have to go either to multiple enclosures or rack mounting. Using that as a metric I would call anything below 100TB smallish. Storage is indeed progressing a lot.

That much storage would still cost somewhere around $1500-$2000. Impressively low, but still in the range of a very dedicated hobbyist.

Re: Sci-Hub Founder Criticizes Sudden Twitter Ban over “Counterfeit” Content

#169

Post by Pixionus »

wongarsu wrote: post #162
biggc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 55 TB ... > smallish What a time to be alive

55 TB fits comfortably on 4 16TB HDDs. You can fit around 8 drives in a single tabletop NAS before you have to go either to multiple enclosures or rack mounting. Using that as a metric I would call anything below 100TB smallish. Storage is indeed progressing a lot.

For most of the lay users I help in the community 4tb is immense. For most of my colleagues (I work on Kubernetes cluster backbends for large companies running streaming services you likely use, among other 'big' data companies) 20-50tb is if you run your own all time backups (usually with ZFS and the like so divide that by 3 for total usable space). The guys that are running IPtv or other sketchy video streaming and scraping software are hovering around 100TB-200TB in their NAS and none of them actually run user grade hardware... I'm honestly very surprised to hear it referred to as 'smallish'.. At most I'd say 100TB is about middle of the road now days for media horders and small for media content producers.

Now my buddy that worked on the CEPH storage backed at CERN would laugh at any of these numbers... but that's a different ballpark all together..

Post reply on HN