Statistics professor at Columbia and Georgetown banned from all Google services • Hacker News Board

Re: Statistics professor at Columbia and Georgetown banned from all Google services

#91

Post by gaius » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 7:44 AM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #90

gaius wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd tho'. This mechanism defeats caching; it must cost them cash money to run on that architecture vs generating then serving static pages, perhaps only dynamically fetching comments. Someone at Google thinks it's worth paying for the ability to erase blogs entirely.

> This mechanism defeats caching Wat?

Read the original comment I replied to. The content is not in archive.org because of this design. So it is probably not in any other caches/archives/backups either.

Re: Statistics professor at Columbia and Georgetown banned from all Google services

#92

Post by throwaway613834 » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 8:03 AM UTC

existencebox wrote: post #19

At the risk of being tangential to the topic: Let this be a friendly reminder that if you, like me, use google services heavily, it may be in your best interest to do regular backups of your account state. (I have no affiliation etc; I just realized when reading this that it had been almost a year since my last backup) Here's a link to support documenting "how". https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190?hl=e…

Do you know of any way to automate it (besides scripting a full browser)?

Re: Statistics professor at Columbia and Georgetown banned from all Google services

#93

Post by throwaway613834 » Wed, Aug 23, 2017, 8:22 AM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #81

Result: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6305625...

> Thank you all very much, in recent days, for the outpouring of support in my Google predicament. I love you, and together we can and will always achieve great things. Have also spoken with the leadership there, and they restored accounts. I also don’t carry any grievance towards any part of Google, and have no intention of further comments.

That seems like a really strange reply. Why would he word it like that? The only possibilities I can think of are that either Google required such a reply in order to re-enable his account in order to not get in trouble, or he has done something wrong but doesn't want to talk about it.