3 ms·
This leaves me wondering what the point is? What could it possibly cost to keep redirecting existing shortlinks that they consider unused/low activity already a
by OJFord 1y ago
This leaves me wondering what the point is? What could it possibly cost to keep redirecting existing shortlinks that they consider unused/low activity already anyway?
(In addition to the higher activity ones parent link says they'll now continue to redirect.)
- toomuchtodo 1y agoTo save face.
- RicoElectrico 1y agoIn another submission someone speculated the reason might be the unending churn of the Google tech stack that just makes low-maintenance stuff impossible.
- immibis 1y agoMy guess is that plus not having a single person left to maintain it due to the similarly unending people churn.
- manquer 1y agoFor a company also running a hosting service like GCP? nothing. They already have plenty of unused compute /older hardware / CDN POPs, performant distributed data store and everything else possibly needed . It would be cheaper than the free credits they giveaway just one startup to be on GCP. I don’t think infra costs are a factor in a decision like this .