Live data from Hacker News

IMGZ – Paid image sharing

imgz.org

281–290 of 409 posts

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#281
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think he wants to hurt me in their HN profile they wrote about themselves: Provocateur extraordinaire. So malicious intent cannot be ruled out

Eh I'd rather assume the best, he seems like a nice guy.

I just paid for one year of Historious. I did like the service - that's why I was using it back in July 2010! I hope you have time to keep it up.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, this is an interesting question. The site makes it, I think, abundantly clear that I don't really care whether you use the site or not, I made it for me and you can use it if you pay for your resources. It's even open source and you can self-host if you want! Yet people in the comments seem a bit offended at the perceived breaking of the unspoken assumption that a service can't exist without a need for cust…

> I think it's very interesting how deeply culturally embedded the notion that a service wants customers is. By definition, a “service” is to serve. Even if you are the only “customer”, it’s still serving someone. And most people have this notion because most services do, in fact, serve other customers, and that’s their main purpose. Not sure why that’s surprising. > I don't really care whether you use the site or no…

That’s just one definition. According to Google and the Oxford dictionary, the first definition of a service is “the action of helping or doing work for someone”.

It does not need to involve customers or even be a business transaction.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's very interesting how deeply culturally embedded the notion that a service wants customers is. By definition, a “service” is to serve. Even if you are the only “customer”, it’s still serving someone. And most people have this notion because most services do, in fact, serve other customers, and that’s their main purpose. Not sure why that’s surprising. > I don't really care whether you use the site or no…

That’s just one definition. According to Google and the Oxford dictionary, the first definition of a service is “the action of helping or doing work for someone”. It does not need to involve customers or even be a business transaction.

Sure, but the OP is implying that this “service” is intended for himself primarily, without regard to anyone else consuming it; that it’s odd for “service” to imply it should be used by multiple consumers. When, in fact, most services exist for the consumption of multiple consumers.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#285
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm still a sarcastic asshole. Beats being a boring asshole like me! :P (And thank you for the kind plug)

I purchased one based on this exchange alone. I'm an impressionable sod!

You and two others, apparently. I'll save that stat for next time my wife says I "waste my time" on HN!

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#286
post #73

Those are some pretty terrible prices. You can share images (or anything else) publicly from Dropbox/Box/GDrive/OneDrive for a lot cheaper. Or just cut out the middleman and set up a S3 bucket for a few cents.

> set up a S3 bucket

Based on my experience as a boring nerdy-nerd who also happens to know how to host a Minecraft server, I hope I never get asked for that...

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we know what keeps busymom0 so busy.

And where she gets all that money to literally throw at crappy internet services when she could be using Dropbox|Google|FTP|Fifikno for cheaper.

I see it as a way to contribute to meme culture similar to the WallStreetbets saga.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#288

Stavros. You need to detach a little bit, get a 10,000m view. You've got something, you can be successful. But your approach is "out of whack" and people aren't going to support you. Conform to influence.

Is it not ok to make a "little bit" (you can be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams from a small business) of money from a opinionated business (akin to a restauraunt, perhaps) rather than conform and become just one more ycombinator-esque startup in the hope you'll make even more money if you make it big.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conform to influence. OBEY. I was going to upload a nice screencap from a 1988 movie They Live to IMGZ and link it here, but it turns out my trial expired so no link for you.

Well guess what just UNEXPIRED

Why thank you. I thought I actually had a paid account, but it turns out I misremembered. Got to fix that.

EDIT now the site disagrees and tells me I already paid. That's one growth hack.

The joke has expired so still no meme image for the parent poster. I appreciate the explanation, though.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#290
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a database. That's where you're meant to put DATA.

>Yes, it's a database. That's where you're meant to put DATA. Most (all?) large-scale high-volume image storage architectures I'm aware of do not store billions of images as blobs in a database. Instead, they typically store the images as files . The database only holding metadata info and a pointer to the image filename location (or url if using AWS S3 or CDN). E.g. Facebook is one of the largest MySQL sites (if not…

I too do that, in a different context, and it's fine. Databases have problems with big items, but images aren't big in that sense nowadays.

The problems relate mostly to backups/copies/reloads, that kind of thing, and copying an image doesn't cause anything to hiccup. A transaction that transferred 1MB over a modem line was a problem, that could block other commits for a long time, on today's networks 1MB doesn't take long.

Post reply on HN