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

Cloudflare took down our website

robindev.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 483 posts

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#281

Post by archon810 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #77

I have been hearing stories from developers/entrepeneurs about Cloudflare being very weird to deal with: "We'd like to talk to you about an enterprise plan." "No thanks, I'm fine with the free plan." "Based on your traffic, we'd like to talk to you about an enteprrise plan." "Is there a traffic limit on the free plan?" "No, there is no limit. But based on your traffic, we require you to get an enteprirse plan." [Give…

Our experience has been quite the opposite once we were forced to migrate from a free plan (a long time ago after what felt like abusing the free plan due to the amount of bandwidth we were using).

The bandwidth caps and all included features were clearly spelled out in the entetprise contract and when we went over, they didn't push for a contract renegotiation unless the overage lasted like 3+ months. And we frequently got new features included in for free.

In fact, recently they asked to renegotiate the contract due to some obsolescence and we ended up significantly dropping the bill as a result. Kind of backfired on them, I wonder if the account manager is kicking herself for this.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#282

Post by blibble »

randunel wrote: post #265

This post was definitely demoted by HN. It stayed in the first position for less than 5 minutes and, as it quickly gathered upvotes, it jumped straight into 24th and quickly fell off the first page as it got 200 or so more points in less than an hour. I'm 80% confident HN tried to hide this link. It's the fastest downhill I've noticed on here, and I've been lurking and commenting for longer than 10 years.

yep, it happens every single time a negative story about cloudflare appears

more than a coincidence

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#283

Post by Vvector »

brigadier132 wrote: post #224
Xeamek wrote: post #189

Can any1 explain how HN algo works that this post, which at time of writing has 355p, 180comments while being posted 1 hour ago, isn't even on first page (ranked 31)???

My guess for why this would be flagged: its a gambling website so people are unsympathetic. Definitely an abuse of the flagging system.

I though flagged content showed a "[flagged]" in the title?

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#284

Post by AlotOfReading »

dilawar wrote: post #280
randunel wrote: post #265

This post was definitely demoted by HN. It stayed in the first position for less than 5 minutes and, as it quickly gathered upvotes, it jumped straight into 24th and quickly fell off the first page as it got 200 or so more points in less than an hour. I'm 80% confident HN tried to hide this link. It's the fastest downhill I've noticed on here, and I've been lurking and commenting for longer than 10 years.

I had to search for it. I was under the impression that HN removed it for some reason. Does HN has stake in cloudflare?!

Ranking is strongly impacted by the flamewar-detector. Affected threads are automatically downranked to cool things down until a moderator steps in and manually reviews it.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#285

Post by blibble »

gioo wrote: post #252
Xeamek wrote: post #189

Can any1 explain how HN algo works that this post, which at time of writing has 355p, 180comments while being posted 1 hour ago, isn't even on first page (ranked 31)???

if you check sites that track HN's rankings, it was ranked #1 for a while, then it suddenly dropped to #27 and continued declining https://hnrankings.info/40481808/

yes that's pretty blatant isn't it

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#287

Post by coolspot »

randunel wrote: post #265

This post was definitely demoted by HN. It stayed in the first position for less than 5 minutes and, as it quickly gathered upvotes, it jumped straight into 24th and quickly fell off the first page as it got 200 or so more points in less than an hour. I'm 80% confident HN tried to hide this link. It's the fastest downhill I've noticed on here, and I've been lurking and commenting for longer than 10 years.

That’s why I use hckrnews-com as HN front-end.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#288

Post by gruez »

busterarm wrote: post #238
gruez wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think the call is for companies to be less psychopathic and stop onboarding people within 90 days of mass layoffs. Was there any indication that the "mass layoffs" were planned 90 days in advance?

It takes around that long to plan and for public companies they don't just suddenly come to that decision within a single quarter, but also that's missing the point. If you're a public company and you go from healthy to mass layoffs within a single quarter then your investors (and employees) should be a lot more concerned.

>If you're a public company and you go from healthy to mass layoffs within a single quarter then your investors (and employees) should be a lot more concerned.

1. According to the CEO the layoffs in question were for "~40 sales people out of over 1,500 in our go to market org"[1]. Is that really a "mass layoff"?

2. Did you not remember that the layoffs coincided with reversal in macroeconomic conditions? Specifically, the reversal from "inflation is transitory" to "inflation is persistent and the central bank will hike interest interest rates".

[1] https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1745697840180191501

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#290

Post by gruez »

mtndew4brkfst wrote: post #240
gruez wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think the call is for companies to be less psychopathic and stop onboarding people within 90 days of mass layoffs. Was there any indication that the "mass layoffs" were planned 90 days in advance?

That wasn't how I interpreted this phrasing. I read it as "it is worth being critical of an org that does mass layoffs and then goes on to hire new people to fill vacated roles shortly after the layoffs were finished". That timing shows that it's not just implementing headcount and budget reductions, which are somewhat defensible if still tragic. It was instead a forced turnover, which in some cases can be a route to…

>That timing shows that it's not just implementing headcount and budget reductions, which are somewhat defensible if still tragic. It was instead a forced turnover, which in some cases can be a route to wage suppression.

Apparently the person in question was fired within 3 months of being hired[1]. If this is true it seems like a stretch to characterize it as "forced turnover" or "wage suppression".

[1] https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1745697840180191501

Post reply on HN