7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80

So he's saying people wouldn't sacrifice much if they were to leave Meta-backed services?

Also, note that doesn't increase the stripe size for old data; it's just for future writes.

But you could copy the old data to a new location and it would take advantage of the new stripe size.

It used to be that you couldn't grow the pool, so you needed all of your drives up-front.

Now you can start with four drives and slowly grow over time to whatever your target goal is. It's much more friendly for home labs/tight budgets.

Finally! #15022, it's been a long time coming...

TechDirt is a larger, well-known site.

I've had similar things happen to my much less popular site and it took a long time to get it resolved (this wasn't with Cloudflare, though).

I'm curious what the process would look like for a small startup or something.

I feel an urge to go play Horizon Zero Dawn now.

It wasn't always followed on Reddit, but downvoting there was supposed to be for comments that don't contribute to the conversation.

Here the guidance is looser -- the docs don't address comments, but do say to "upvote posts that you like."

I've tried contributing to some conversations and sometimes present a different viewpoint in the interest of thought exchange, but this often results in massive downvotes because people disagree. I'm not going to waste my energy contributing to a community that ends up burying my posts because we have different opinions.

That's true on Reddit to, so I'm kind of being tangential to the original question. I guess what I'm saying is that some people might feel like I do and won't engage in any community, be it Reddit or Lemmy, if it's just going to be an echo chamber.

I'm still using my Galaxy S8 with only one problem: Verizon's voicemail app won't run on something this old. Every other app is fine. It figures that the only app that encourages me to upgrade is from the phone company.

Technically, each time that it is viewed it is a republication from copyright perspective. It's a digital copy that is redistributed; the original copy that was made doesn't go away when someone views it. There's not just one copy that people pass around like a library book.

Again, isn't that the site's prerogative?

I think there should at least be a recognized way to opt-out that archive.org actually follows. For years they told people to put

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow:

in robots.txt, but they still archived content from those sites. They refuse to publish what IP addresses they pull content down from, but that would be a trivial thing to do. They refuse to use a UserAgent that you can filter on.

If you want to be a library, be open and honest about it. There's no need to sneak around.

Like I said, I have no problems with individuals archiving it and not republishing it.

If I take a newspaper article and republish it on my site I guarantee you I will get a takedown notice. That will be especially true if I start linking to my copy as the canonical source from places like Wikipedia.

It's a fine line. Is archive.org a library (wasn't there a court case about this recently...) or are they republishing?

Either way, it doesn't matter for me any more. The pages are gone from the archive, and they won't archive any more.

Shouldn't that be the content creator's prerogative? What if the content had a significant error? What if they removed the page because of a request from someone living in the EU requested it under their laws? What if the page was edited because someone accidentally made their address and phone number public in a forum post?