23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself • Hacker News Board

Re: 23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself

#421

Post by Unroasted6154 » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:02 AM UTC

ripped_britches wrote: post #124

Quekid5 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still have to backup those keys somewhere... and if you don't do it the same way as for the data then your backups are effectively worthless.

Yea was going to say this. I would be surprised if any major company does this for normal uses.

That's how GAFAMs size companies do it. They need to comply with European regulations for data deletion, and there are very few other options.

Re: 23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself

#422

Post by Unroasted6154 » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:06 AM UTC

Quekid5 wrote: post #414

muti wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much less data to back up so it can be stored in a way that is replicated for redundancy but still mutable. Separating the key and data is what allows for sending data to tape backup etc

If your (backup-via-redundancy) keys are mutable, you do not have a backup . What happens in the case of a ransomware attack, for example? You've also added (possibly substantial) latency to every single operation that operates on user data.

One simple way is to keep only a few days / weeks of (immutable) keys backups. You can always stop the deletion of you have a big issue. If the law says you have 14 days to delete all data, you keep only that much backups.

Re: 23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself

#423

Post by hnfong » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:14 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #420

hnfong wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, it's very common for stocks listed in the Hong Kong stock exchange to have its share price below assets minus debts..

Weird - any idea why?

People think the property market in Hong Kong and China is going to collapse. And much of the asset price can be attributed to real estate.

Re: 23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself

#424

Post by ZeroTalent » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 9:44 AM UTC

jaggs wrote: post #403

ZeroTalent wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yup, i haven't had my coffee yet when I was writing it either :)

LOL, serious question. Is coffee to writing really a thing? It sounds a bit weird to me, but maybe it's shorthand? :)

It's that we open Hacker News right after we wake up and post comments before our brains are in full power, hence the mistakes. Coffee is not a necessity, but most people drink it. I believe it's not exactly about caffeine but letting the brain 30 minutes or so to "wake up" to stop making mistakes. At least, that's how it works in my case.

Re: 23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself

#425

Post by jaggs » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 9:57 AM UTC

ZeroTalent wrote: post #424

jaggs wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, serious question. Is coffee to writing really a thing? It sounds a bit weird to me, but maybe it's shorthand? :)

It's that we open Hacker News right after we wake up and post comments before our brains are in full power, hence the mistakes. Coffee is not a necessity, but most people drink it. I believe it's not exactly about caffeine but letting the brain 30 minutes or so to "wake up" to stop making mistakes. At least, that's how it works in my case.

Aha, thanks very much for the detailed explanation. Absolutely makes sense.

Re: 23andMe files for bankruptcy to sell itself

#426

Post by nickm12 » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 3:30 AM UTC

silisili wrote: post #82

nickm12 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says someone who has never experienced a data loss bug.

Was the data really important? Is it worth holding people's data hostage because of subpar developers? I'm not at all saying that soft deletion shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that hard deletion should be the default, and then soft deletion practices should have some justification. Instead the industry chose to just soft delete everywhere, which is good for the industry, and bad for users.

The industry chose the default of "data that is stored in durable storage is probably important". Sorry, I just don't see how that is bad for users when compared to the alternative default of "data that is stored in durable storage should be irretrievably deleted immediately".