Yes, we can assume "vertical video" means "shorts". But once we do that, I still don't see anything on the front page or the FAQ or the github page that mentions shorts. The HN title had "without vertical videos" jammed in and that needs clarification. Maybe there's a toggle somewhere to hide shorts? Or maybe it doesn't have a shorts feed but it otherwise has shorts? Or something else? It's not clear.
Maybe you're having issues with their writing style or something but the tech is simple. They copy their stuff to a tape and keep it somewhere they aren't. If a disaster happens they'll buy a new tape drive.
I'm not going to actually suggest LTO-7, but what do you think is a reasonable per-month cost for backing up your important data? If it's in the $5-$10 range then you can afford a $600 drive and some tapes.
> Basically LTO is a terrible backup strategy unless you have a lot of money regularly that you will spend in order to upgrade your entire equipment every two/three generations (otherwise your newer equipment wont read your old tapes).
"regularly" can be 10 years. Your new equipment doesn't need to read your old tapes. If you advance by 4 generations, you can buy 1 new tape to replace 10 old tapes. And the newer generations have abandoned that feature anyway.
This has little to do with whether you curate. That's a whole different discussion about optimizing for cost, where many many terabytes eventually make LTO become cheaper. When we're specifically looking at reliability for important files, there might only be one tape's worth of data. It's a $3000 fee to make that tape (and its backups) last a long time in storage, and having more or less data barely affects the price.
I don't think you get to be this snarky about helping people understand things, when your initial contribution was to read "it's all hands over the holiday weekend time" and reply by saying it's a holiday weekend.
They did a stealth edit to not look as foolish. They didn't mention the holiday or weekend in what I replied to originally. That's why I snapped back with snark.
No, I didn't say that at all. I said they are biased, that "they make things much more negative (= less positive) than they are", which is a very different thing. Basically, I'm saying they report x-10 rather than x (that's bias), and you are replying with "so the value of x they report is always negative or 0." No. Wrong.
Oh that was the person earlier in the conversation, okay.
So you haven't really been specific at all. I don't know how I could even try to check if a vague claim like that is right or wrong. But since they apparently have positive spacex reporting and only say other things are negative then I'm skeptical of significant bias.
Again, their SpaceX reporting might be "positive", but that doesn't mean it has positive bias. Apart from that, I previously said the non-SpaceX reporters are strongly biased. Anything about the SpaceX reporting isn't relevant for that.
reply