12 ms·

This comment reads as "This is normal; nothing to see here move along". Which is more of an indictment on the state of things than on the comment itself. If y

This comment reads as "This is normal; nothing to see here move along". Which is more of an indictment on the state of things than on the comment itself. If you can't protect people's shit, don't offer to hold onto it for money!

nabla9 6y ago
I try to avoid normative statements because it leads to better discussion. Unfortunately this style of discussion leads to comments that project normative stance, or criticize me from not making my normative position clear. (positive statement is statement of what without indication of approval or disapproval, normative statement expresses a value judgment)
- TheNorthman 6y ago
  > In this case just 10TB of data was lost Seems like a value judgement to me. Anyhow, something about `innumerable, singular sites of suffering' makes the point rather moot.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    just is positive assessment about relative size. I could be wrong about positive statement of course. But it seems very low amount for a cloud service. I wast trying to understand how business thinking work. Not judge or praise it.
Aeolun 6y ago
But we’d make more money!
plutonorm 6y ago
Your comment is basically saying capitalism is bad. I agree.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Then turn off the computer and cancel your internet.
  - malka 6y ago
    https://i.imgur.com/CDgZs2m_d.webp?maxwidth=728&fidelity=grand https://i.imgur.com/CDgZs2m_d.webp?maxwidth=728&fidelity=gra...
  - coldtea 6y ago
    That doesn't follow. That's like saying: - Slavery is bad. - Then don't wear cotton clothes. Maybe instead change the system so there's no slavery, and have non-slaves pick up cotton and make cotton clothes? Non-capitalist countries can have computers and internet too. In fact most computers today are made in "communist" China.
    - syshum 6y ago
      > In fact most computers today are made in "communist" China. No Most computers today are made in "Special Economic Zone" China that has exempted almost all communist economic policies in favor of Free market capitalism because even hard core authoritarian communists know that their economic model is a path to poverty for everyone including the leaders
      - nicoburns 6y ago
        Nevertheless, such a system is quite a long way from a true free-market approach. And I think it demonstrates that market based systems that aren't "free markets" can be quite effective, and indeed from a theoretical perspective it seems to me very likely that such approaches work better than a "remove regulation at all costs" approach. EDIT: there was initially a typo in this comment. I meant "aren't free markets", not "are free markets".
        syshum 6y ago
wruza 6y ago
Or what? They could and they did.
- kohtatsu 6y ago
  Or they could like, not. I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I believe that world is nicer and where possible I work to give it room to exist; I boycott Disney because I believe what they did to the copyright system is wrong. I don't use Google or Microsoft products because I don't think they treat users with respect. (Minus youtube which I use a mirror, and the occasional google search when I get tired of banging my head against ddg (~1-2/week, but my tolerance is probably higher than most)) I'm even abstaining from my copy of Overwatch despite loving the gameplay of a character in it, because I don't believe supporting the HK protests warrants a ban. I'm not going to boycott Canon from this, incompetence is generally forgivable, but I certainly think it's noteworthy, and if it comes to light they are as nonchalant as OP says they can be then I won't be supporting them. Downthread someone had mentioned there was a 10GB/user cap, so it's unlikely someone had been using it as their only copy which is also reassuring. But then again maybe someone was just getting into photography after having a baby, and their precious first photos were lost! Or photos from a special date, or first (god forbid last) moments with a pet; it's sad to think about, and it can't be justified with "darn, guess it's gone forever so Canon could gain a small advantage using some risk calculus. Oh well, I give more of a damn about the stock market than those photos." Don't give me that shit! Disclaimer: I only own a pitiful EOS 20d and a cute f1.4 50mm, but my friend has been super into photography and I've been wanting to get into it again. Thanks for reading my rant.
  - chrisweekly 6y ago
    "Minus youtube which I use a mirror" ?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - falcor84 6y ago
wodenokoto 6y ago
No, that comment sounds like the insurance job described in Fight Club[1] > Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. [1] Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE
- jaclaz 6y ago
  Or that actually happened, in the known Ford Pinto Memo "affair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analys...
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    And a little further down the same page you linked.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safety_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet... Turns out the Pinto was within the realm of normal for a car of that type and era and if you're building something normal it's hard to justify recalling it at great expense unless everyone else is recalling it to (in which case that would be normal).
    - droopyEyelids 6y ago
      This thread has been a bit of a roller coaster.
    - jaclaz 6y ago
      Yep, but that is an analysis from a Legal viewpoint. What - I believe - made the Pinto case memorable was not that in a given subset of accidents it was (or was not) slightly more dangerous, it is the fact that the matter was looked into by the manufacturers and that it was waved off on a mere cost/benefit basis (with a supposed cost for increased security per car of US$ 11). Mind you this is all in all normal, any safety norm or related technical specifications is (or should be) based on the "reasonable costs for society to obtain a reasonable increase in safety".
tedk-42 6y ago
"If you can't protect people's shit, don't offer to hold onto it for money!" If you can't sell a reliable car, don't make one? Products fail sometimes and we in the tech-sphere get to laugh about it. No such thing as 100% failure proof. Customers that paid for the service would be angry but no doubt, they'd get their money back. Yes they might have lost more, but that's the business sometimes.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  There's a price point out there for everybody, and the lower ones are not very secure I imagine. What's missing is, some certification level that tells you how secure the data is. So you know what you're buying into?
  - tedk-42 6y ago
    You mean like an SLA which says the availability of your data?
    - hinkley 6y ago
      SLAs are bullshit. Refunds are fine for retail customers, and most SLAs I’ve ever had the need to discuss seem to be based on that model. If I buy a computer from you for $1000 and it breaks, I’m out $1000, I want my money back. Vendor might be fine with that. If I buy a commercial oven from you for $40,000 and it breaks I’m out the price of the oven, plus half of my sales for a week while it gets repaired, wages for people who are now half useless to my business, and loss of trust and/or customers for my company since I had none of my signature baked goods for the entire week. I don’t want SLAs, I want a warranty. Insurance.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

nabla9 6y ago

I try to avoid normative statements because it leads to better discussion. Unfortunately this style of discussion leads to comments that project normative stance, or criticize me from not making my normative position clear. (positive statement is statement of what without indication of approval or disapproval, normative statement expresses a value judgment)

TheNorthman 6y ago
> In this case just 10TB of data was lost Seems like a value judgement to me. Anyhow, something about `innumerable, singular sites of suffering' makes the point rather moot.
- nabla9 6y ago
  just is positive assessment about relative size. I could be wrong about positive statement of course. But it seems very low amount for a cloud service. I wast trying to understand how business thinking work. Not judge or praise it.

Aeolun 6y ago

But we’d make more money!

plutonorm 6y ago

Your comment is basically saying capitalism is bad. I agree.

microcolonel 6y ago
Then turn off the computer and cancel your internet.
- malka 6y ago
  https://i.imgur.com/CDgZs2m_d.webp?maxwidth=728&fidelity=grand https://i.imgur.com/CDgZs2m_d.webp?maxwidth=728&fidelity=gra...
- coldtea 6y ago
  That doesn't follow. That's like saying: - Slavery is bad. - Then don't wear cotton clothes. Maybe instead change the system so there's no slavery, and have non-slaves pick up cotton and make cotton clothes? Non-capitalist countries can have computers and internet too. In fact most computers today are made in "communist" China.
  - syshum 6y ago
    > In fact most computers today are made in "communist" China. No Most computers today are made in "Special Economic Zone" China that has exempted almost all communist economic policies in favor of Free market capitalism because even hard core authoritarian communists know that their economic model is a path to poverty for everyone including the leaders
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Nevertheless, such a system is quite a long way from a true free-market approach. And I think it demonstrates that market based systems that aren't "free markets" can be quite effective, and indeed from a theoretical perspective it seems to me very likely that such approaches work better than a "remove regulation at all costs" approach. EDIT: there was initially a typo in this comment. I meant "aren't free markets", not "are free markets".
      - syshum 6y ago

wruza 6y ago

Or what? They could and they did.

kohtatsu 6y ago
Or they could like, not. I think there's a world where corporations aren't given a carte blanche pass on human decency. I believe that world is nicer and where possible I work to give it room to exist; I boycott Disney because I believe what they did to the copyright system is wrong. I don't use Google or Microsoft products because I don't think they treat users with respect. (Minus youtube which I use a mirror, and the occasional google search when I get tired of banging my head against ddg (~1-2/week, but my tolerance is probably higher than most)) I'm even abstaining from my copy of Overwatch despite loving the gameplay of a character in it, because I don't believe supporting the HK protests warrants a ban. I'm not going to boycott Canon from this, incompetence is generally forgivable, but I certainly think it's noteworthy, and if it comes to light they are as nonchalant as OP says they can be then I won't be supporting them. Downthread someone had mentioned there was a 10GB/user cap, so it's unlikely someone had been using it as their only copy which is also reassuring. But then again maybe someone was just getting into photography after having a baby, and their precious first photos were lost! Or photos from a special date, or first (god forbid last) moments with a pet; it's sad to think about, and it can't be justified with "darn, guess it's gone forever so Canon could gain a small advantage using some risk calculus. Oh well, I give more of a damn about the stock market than those photos." Don't give me that shit! Disclaimer: I only own a pitiful EOS 20d and a cute f1.4 50mm, but my friend has been super into photography and I've been wanting to get into it again. Thanks for reading my rant.
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  "Minus youtube which I use a mirror" ?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - falcor84 6y ago

wodenokoto 6y ago

No, that comment sounds like the insurance job described in Fight Club[1] > Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. [1] Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE

jaclaz 6y ago
Or that actually happened, in the known Ford Pinto Memo "affair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analysis,_the_Pinto_Memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost–benefit_analys...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  And a little further down the same page you linked.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safety_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet... Turns out the Pinto was within the realm of normal for a car of that type and era and if you're building something normal it's hard to justify recalling it at great expense unless everyone else is recalling it to (in which case that would be normal).
  - droopyEyelids 6y ago
    This thread has been a bit of a roller coaster.
  - jaclaz 6y ago
    Yep, but that is an analysis from a Legal viewpoint. What - I believe - made the Pinto case memorable was not that in a given subset of accidents it was (or was not) slightly more dangerous, it is the fact that the matter was looked into by the manufacturers and that it was waved off on a mere cost/benefit basis (with a supposed cost for increased security per car of US$ 11). Mind you this is all in all normal, any safety norm or related technical specifications is (or should be) based on the "reasonable costs for society to obtain a reasonable increase in safety".

tedk-42 6y ago

"If you can't protect people's shit, don't offer to hold onto it for money!" If you can't sell a reliable car, don't make one? Products fail sometimes and we in the tech-sphere get to laugh about it. No such thing as 100% failure proof. Customers that paid for the service would be angry but no doubt, they'd get their money back. Yes they might have lost more, but that's the business sometimes.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
There's a price point out there for everybody, and the lower ones are not very secure I imagine. What's missing is, some certification level that tells you how secure the data is. So you know what you're buying into?
- tedk-42 6y ago
  You mean like an SLA which says the availability of your data?
  - hinkley 6y ago
    SLAs are bullshit. Refunds are fine for retail customers, and most SLAs I’ve ever had the need to discuss seem to be based on that model. If I buy a computer from you for $1000 and it breaks, I’m out $1000, I want my money back. Vendor might be fine with that. If I buy a commercial oven from you for $40,000 and it breaks I’m out the price of the oven, plus half of my sales for a week while it gets repaired, wages for people who are now half useless to my business, and loss of trust and/or customers for my company since I had none of my signature baked goods for the entire week. I don’t want SLAs, I want a warranty. Insurance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]