Fog Creek is about to go down • Hacker News Board

Re: Fog Creek is about to go down

#191

Post by marbletiles » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 8:36 AM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #134

spolsky wrote: post #118

I'm kind of an optimist; I believe it'll only be a matter of hours total outage. The generator is fine, the equipment is fine, the internet connectivity is fine... the only problem is getting fuel up to the generator on the 17th floor, while the fuel pumps in the basement are submerged. Someone will carry it up 17 flights if need be.

Given an average requirement of 500 gallons an hour? That's nearly 2 tonnes. Nobody's carrying that up 17 flights.

Oh, you magnificent eejits http://status.fogcreek.com/2012/10/diesel-bucket-brigade-mai...

Re: Fog Creek is about to go down

#192

Post by Supreme » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 9:42 AM UTC

dbecker wrote: post #175

Supreme wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not running a blog or expecting anyone to take what they read in a comment on some site on the internet seriously. Label me however you want, it's a free internet (for now, anyway). I still find it funny how anyone can start a blog and become famous for it. Maybe I should do the same and cash in on all that buttery goodness of advertising revenue...

Not just anyone can start a blog and become famous for it. People have to want to read your blog.

So it's essentially a marketing problem. I get the feeling that you were trying to suggest that it's worthy because it's popular. If so, argumentum ad populum is irrational. If not, apologies.

Re: Fog Creek is about to go down

#193

Post by antiterra » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 7:22 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #82

TillE wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty amusing to see you posting this when a couple days ago, you were accusing the media of "blowing it out of proportion". Oh hey, it turns out they were right. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4706959

I never use the words that you "quoted". I said "superstorm" was a stupid term. It's a hurricane. Use a well-defined word when it's available. (The hurricane was also predicted to weaken to a tropical storm before landfall at the time I wrote that.)

You predicted it was just going to rain a lot; you completely ignored everything reported on storm surges.

Even now, you're concerned with the hurricane classification and missed the fact that barometric pressure, tide timing and bathymetry of the New York Harbor/Long Island Sound were the currently predicted causes of flooding, not simply windspeed. As I responded to your comment, "hurricane" or "tropical storm" classifications were not appropriately descriptive, as Sandy was predicted to (and did) merge with another system to morph from a warm core tropical style system to a cold core nor'easter system. The area of the storm was particularly large, which was another reason for the "super" attribution.