That’s pretty funny. Users of NYT are sending request headers with sixteen kilobytes of tracking data. Maybe that’s the real problem eh?
I wonder which news website has the largest amount of trackers. If I let the CNN home page sit open in chrome, I can come back an hour later and find thousands of requests blocked by uBlock.
That would've taken half a hour on a dial-up connection.
How do you see this? What tools in the browser?
Note: I use an ad blocker primarily as a means against malware.
And btw it’s not free; there is a paywall and you can subscribe to the NYT.
IIRC they recently made more money from digital subs than they made from ads for the first time ever. But if they removed ads tomorrow it would still destroy the business as it currently operates.
(Sorry if this is off-topic)
In addition to not being really appropriate for nytimes.com, I'm guessing that publishing content there brings along a lot of extra cruft that is probably not necessary for a post like this (advertising, paywall system, isolating it from the "real" NYTimes content, etc.). Easier to just throw it up on Medium and call it a day.
Our CTO made our first post to Medium explaining the move: https://open.nytimes.com/introducing-the-new-open-blog-23eba...
It's very easy for me to see something like blog.newyorktimes.com with a similar design / community philosophy as Medium, but would that somehow cheapen the experience for NYT readers? Or does NYT just not see itself as a "hip tech company" like Medium? I have endless questions about this, haha.
It seems to me like there's a lot of unstated assumptions hiding in "not appropriate for nytimes.com". Some things mentioned include -- "advertising, paywall system, isolating it from the "real" NYTimes content, etc.". This is absolutely baffling to me! I would be much more inclined to read regular NYT content were it not for these things.
As vivid example of this, compare James Birdle breaking the "Youtube exploitative kid videos" story way before, and in greater depth, than in any major publication. This is actually the future of news, and pretending like aging institutions like the New York Times are remotely relevant anymore is longshot wishful thinking.
Editorialization, fact-checking, and cultural leadership have important roles to play, and I'm excited to see these features unbundled into separate services. I'm long on services like Verrit and Snopes, and wish that I, as an independent publisher, could pay an intern to get official statements, cross-check narratives with history, and perform some of these functions. As is, I think people are operating under the delusion that ONLY NYT-style institutions can perform these functions, which baffles me.
(Actually, the future is probably more like James posting on jamesbridle.com, and then aggregating it through sites like Hacker News. But what do I know, I'm just a millennial who doesn't understand all these big partisan topics like modern journalism)
and Birdle's post itself links to reporting by New York Magazine from 2016. I don't dispute that his post goes into more detail, I just dispute that longer automatically equals better. Someone with domain knowledge reporting a story in great depth and a major publication reporting a simplified version for mass consumption is certainly not a new model.
I'd also strongly disagree that NYT is an ageing institution unable to adapt to this modern tech reality. John Herrman writes some of the most perceptive pieces about the state of tech out there:
(and a minor quibble: I don't think the post linked here and the Youtube Kids post are in any way comparable. The engineering writeup is not news in any way, shape or form, it's just a guide to how NYT implemented something)
You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems.
But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.
If google starts killing their cloud products, I will eat my socks. Just let me wash them first.
7.1 Discontinuance of Services. Subject to Section 7.2, Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer.
7.2 Deprecation Policy. Google will announce if it intends to discontinue or make backwards incompatible changes to the Services specified at the URL in the next sentence. Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to continue to operate those Services versions and features identified at https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation without these changes for at least one year after that announcement, unless (as Google determines in its reasonable good faith judgment)
So technically they can do it, though their enterprise customers likely have stronger agreements that require at least X time (probably 1 year) notice
Look, I hate a lot of what Google stands for and where it’s going. But I find it very implausible they’ll kill any non-beta products that are part of google cloud platform. GCP is poised to take the place of AdWords as the google golden goose, helping them to diversify from their heavy reliance on advertising for revenue. They do not want to screw that up.
I’m sure they are well aware of the uprising that would cause amongst developers, aka the core customers of GCP. It would be a stupid move in a highly competitive cloud market, effectively telegraphing the fact that you can not rely on GCP services to exist in perpetuity. Their competitors would likely respond by re-implementing the shut down product with a compatible API so they could literally steal disgruntled users from GCP.
If you’re really concerned about this, the solution is pretty simple: don’t use GCP. If you want to use it, then only rely on the very core services that google clearly has strong incentives not to kill. Those would likely be VMs and any products that have an equivalent at another cloud vendor.
Google has a habit of killing things, no matter if you pay for it and your business relies on it, or not.
Many of their cloud APIs are also acquisitions. The entire Firebase product line, and the Fabric.io product line are acquisitions.
Should we expect those to also disappear suddenly?
I get the gist of the OP's complaint, but like you said, that behavior pattern is just not tenable in the kind of operating environment Google Cloud finds itself in these days.
Disclaimer: I work for Google Cloud, but not on any of the aforementioned products.
You can upload .puz files or let it download from NYT with your subscription, then share the link with friends.
(Web only for now, sorry.)
No interruptions of services?
Or just that people could still log in all the time?
I can't imagine what the purpose would be of capturing session data for each logged in user and transferring that over... I wouldn't even expect that of a fortune 500 company moving platforms.
If that is what they did, it warrants a post on its own.
Because it implies that nobody's running session went "down".
That's much harder because otherwise you'd just start a new service parallel to the other one, and flip a switch that directs all new logins to the new service.