601–610 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone contemplating Snowball or Snowmobile needs to be aware that they always charge the per-GB price for data egress, on top of the hardware rental and shipping.
The webpage says: Data transfers into Amazon S3 are free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Catastrophic? People managed to have kids long before computers and cheap photos. They were happy with the tens of good pictures a year they managed to get on film.
I am sure they will survive but it would be huge loss and emotional shock. It is like saying losing electricity forever should not be catastrophic event, people were living happily without it for 1000s of years.
It was a common trope in Holland when I was young. When people were asked what they'd bring if the house were on fire... The photos.
Will people ever learn NOT to trust any cloud provider for storing their data? Especially when they have those “unlimited” and “lifetime “ deals?! Make your home NAS setup, it’s not even expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the world where Google says they will. This conversation cannot be had unless you will read the article and look at the screenshots. > to store your data for free? Where was it said that this was free? Per the article > So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage Please RTFA before responding. It really isn't that long. Maybe 1.5 TikTok videos for the attention impair…
[flagged]
>> In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free?
Expect condescending comments when if you state things that are outrageous. Especially after responding to a comment that actively demonstrated that they did not read the article. If you disagree that this is a reasonable interpretation maybe clarify that. But this is also all you said, so I'm not sure what you expect me to read it as.
I think there is also sufficient reason to believe you did not read the chain of comments either. This is kinda like jumping into the middle of a conversation while having been zoned out. Sufficient evidence because you are revisiting something already discussed. If you would like to argue that his interpretation was unreasonable you should have provided reasoning to it. Don't play the victim here. You gave a low quality, emotional, and exaggeratory comment. No matter how good the argument is in your head, you can't expect a high quality response nor be upset when someone makes a quip remark. (idk why I'm even responding this one tbh)
__There was no ad hominem attack.__ I responded to your claim, and by quoting the article. I have not dismissed your claim based on your character nor even attacked your character. But I'll concede that I made a slight and my comment was condescending (see above for reasons). Additionally, my slights are not subverting the argument nor detracting from it. If you need clarification, an ad hominem attack is "you should ignore anything [insert user] has to say because they are dumb and voted for [insert political enemy]". See how it doesn't respond to what you said, moves the conversation away, and now places a new standard which must be rebutted which is not actually related to the subject matter? That's what makes it a logical fallacy. We have none of those qualities. Yet now here we are, not talking about the article or the contents...
You, on the other hand, did in fact make a logical fallacy. But that's already been addressed and we need not be more explicit nor derail the conversation further.
> This is not mentioned in the article but it is mentioned in other comments
Pro tip: do not assume the person you are replying to has read every comment under a post. You may assume they have read the direct chain of comments leading to the current point, but no more. If you are tired of saying the same thing maybe instead of saying "as I've already commented" maybe link your comment. Or chill, because frankly this isn't an issue of high importance and you don't have to really defend either situation because none of have a real horse in the race so idk why emotion is high. You should also only assume the context of the direct thread. If you want to claim that the author is hiding truth and that there was in fact clearer explicit ample warnings given, do so here, or provide a reference to your other comment. You cannot assume I am going to read through or search all >500 comments or search your username. Because frankly, I'm responding to what you said, not who you are. If your context is everything you said, including other comments unrelated to this direct chain, the contextual issue is with you not me.
tldr: low quality replies don't get high quality responses and I'm not going to search for every comment you made
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data" Correct. 7 days is not enough time to stream >200TB of data, let alone find a place to stream it to. This puts a human being in a crisis position. He doesn't need to just find someone willing to store his data.…
Crisis (!?) is a bit dramatic. Google response isn't correct but everyone here has there hands a bit dirty. Storing 237 Tb on an unlimited server - the individual clearly knew they were taking advantage of a system and probably should have been ready for some kind of remedy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Also they've been giving out these warnings for months. That's not true though. They've been telling him that his account is in read-only state. Literally no mention anywhere is made about deletion of the account or data in it, until that very last email which gives him 7 days to move his data(which is unreasonable). If they said 6 months ago "your account is entering a read only state, if you don't go below your q…
There are dated messages in the article showing this going back to at least July 2023. So yes, your second case is closer to what appears to have been the sequence of events.
otherwise it says, verbatim:
Hello,
Your account was previously placed in a 14 day grace period because you exceeded your pooled storage limit.
The pooled storage grace period expired on May 25, 2023 and your account is now in a “read-only” state. In this state services are impacted, including users not being able to upload new files or create new Google Docs, Sheets, Slides or Forms. Learn more about the features that are currently impacted.
To prevent any further disruption to services, you can free up or get more storage.
Sincerely,
The Google Workspace Team
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crisis (!?) is a bit dramatic. Google response isn't correct but everyone here has there hands a bit dirty. Storing 237 Tb on an unlimited server - the individual clearly knew they were taking advantage of a system and probably should have been ready for some kind of remedy.
It's google, they're constantly talking about "big data" and "web scale" seems like a reasonable assumption for a layman to make.
The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data" The facts of the article are even less inflammatory. The journalist uploaded 237.22 TB of video to his google drive when the "unlimited" plan existed. When google phased out the unlimited plan, he's not paying fo…
> The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data" Correct. 7 days is not enough time to stream >200TB of data, let alone find a place to stream it to. This puts a human being in a crisis position. He doesn't need to just find someone willing to store his data.…
Dude uploaded over 237 TB, they must have some really long years where you live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Where was it said that this was free? >> In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free? Expect condescending comments when if you state things that are outrageous. Especially after responding to a comment that actively demonstrated that they did not read the article. If you disagree that this is a reasonable interpretation maybe c…