3 ms·
Makes me wonder: if the amount of users affected is vanishingly small, then why implement it, as it sounds like a vanishingly small problem to me?
by MikeDelta 4y ago
Makes me wonder: if the amount of users affected is vanishingly small, then why implement it, as it sounds like a vanishingly small problem to me?
- _a9 4y agoProbably a very small amount of people abusing it somehow (How a lot of files can be abused i dont know), like how a small amount of people abused the old gsuite unlimited plan to store petabytes for $12/m
- alpaca128 4y agoThen why doesn't Google use their standard solution and just ban those vanishingly few users, pointing to an ambiguous "terms of service violation" and then ignoring all their support requests for a lifetime?
- hennell 4y agoFaulty logic. Just because the user count is small doesn't mean the problem is. Banning the letter ö from names on hacker news would affect a vanishingly small amount of users. But if threads needed 100 times more processing and were much slower to load when a user with a ö posted, the problem itself is quite large. Without knowing the full circumstances of why they're doing this, what problems it solves you can't really say if it's a good solution or not. We can however absolutely complain about the "no notice, no advice, no assistance" way it was implemented.