Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Respectfully: if it was obvious, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion I did and written up what I wrote. Sorry about that, I think I assumed some familiarity with moving data around/migrations, and moving 10% of a customers data around from a legacy service to new service wouldn't make much sense in that context. > I bet it would be notably larger than you imagine it would be I think being able to capture 10% of…
> ...I think I assumed some familiarity with moving data around/migrations... I am familiar with this sort of thing, yes. I'm also professionally familiar with people who seem to think that it's totally acceptable to obligate folks to throw away large fractions of their valuable historical data in the name of cost savings. "Surely you can identify the most valuable 10% of your data!" they say. Given that I don't know…
Yeah, I noticed that too. Not that my feelings are hurt or anything, but you might end up in friendlier and more productive discussions if you try to stick to the HN guidelines, which includes:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.