engendered

Most people simply don't need this kind of storage anymore.

But this is exactly the sort of storage the linked article is talking about. So your point is that I attacked a "strawman" because I didn't accept the linked article for being something entirely different from what it is?

but the large majority of companies aren't

The majority of mid to large sized companies run entirely on SANs. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but how shoestring upstarts operate has nothing to do with much of the "real world".

This article is about a home-brew SAN, with home-brew SAN qualities and deficiencies.

Is it irony that you're presenting an absurd strawman to demonstrate my purported strawman?

I "attacked" (aka disagreed with) any broadly-targeted, generalist claims of the linked article (which is in stark contrast with, for example, the Backblaze posts where they build very purpose-suited storage and never try to over-extend their claims), which was quite clearly that people who buy so-called enterprise storage are, to paraphrase the gist of the article, suckers. I noted replication and multipathing because they are the absolute minimum cost of entry for critical storage, and even the linked article references it as a requirement.

The rest of the features were clearly "value adds", given that most enterprise storage features a lot of its value in software. Yes, everyone benefits from automatic tiering. Everyone benefits from thin provisioning, disk-deduplication, and compression. There are a vanishingly small number of users who won't see significant benefits from all of those features.

"All that stuff becomes interesting when and if you need more than two bricks."

? Multipathing is absolutely critical for a single storage unit. Replication is absolutely critical if you have any care at all about uptime, because a single storage unit, even with multipathing and redundant power supplies and "controllers", as appropriate, isn't enough. The rest of them have nothing at all do do with the number of storage units -- thin provisioning gives you fantastic storage control. Compression is obvious. Disk-deduplication...again, the name of the game is minimizing the amount of data you're actually dealing with, because even if have conceptually unlimited storage in your unit(s), that's data you have to move around and replication and backup and...

"Hi there, I'm very open to constructive criticism on my project but I feel that your comment is more of a strawman than particularly useful in any way. I had a look back through your comments on other posts on HN and they seemed to have a similar tone."

So you don't attempt to prejudice only in your blog posts, it appears. This is one of the most sadly defensive responses by a blog author I've yet seen on here.

Where, exactly, is the strawman? Please point it out rather than desperately trying to immunize against my completely valid comment in the most frantic of manners.

You posit an idealized notion about building it yourself based upon accomplishing, to this point, apparently very little. It's one thing to cast a theory and pursue it (e.g. "my attempt at building competitive storage on the cheap"), but you're presenting completely unsupported dogma around it, and then bolstering your own decisions by conclusions you actually don't even remotely have. It's the guy who decided to start working at a standing desk and on day one has a laundry list of comments about why anyone who doesn't is wrong and lesser.

This is a fairly typical, of course, and you see it by people who build their own anything ("don't give all your money to big TP -- six quick tips for making your own!"), and we generally only see it in the before stage, as the after stage is more often than not a littered debris field of failures.

I find it rather incredible that you attempt to incite HN guidelines, as if raw gullibility and boosterism was the direction of the critique. You are making broad claims in the linked article that you have absolutely no basis for making, so criticism is well deserved, and a service for anyone who might buy into this notion, making a fool of themselves in their own organization.

if you’ve got lots of money and you don’t care about how you spend it or translating those savings onto your customers

This is a baseless, prejudiced claim, contrasting buying with some idealized scenario where your in-house crew can only possibly build better solutions cheaper. That there are no other outcomes.

But they might also cost far more in manpower costs than any premium. They might give you an unreliable solution that costs you your entire business. Such an effort might distract from the core competencies of the organization. Operating that storage might end up dwarfing the up-front cost (it's easy to hire admins knowledgeable of EMC. Quite a different matter when it's your own home-brew solution).

I understand the draw, but the "all upside" claim undermines the entire piece. There are enormous downsides, not least the reliability of your data. Companies like EMC and Nimble -- despite "great" editorial quotes added by some random person on Wikipedia -- base their entire existence on reliably serving your data, and things like multipathing and replication are the absolute minimum cost of entry in the market. Now add automatic tiering, thin provisioning, disk-deduplication and streaming hardware compression, etc, and the value starts to become evident.

EDIT: The moderation through this is an abomination. HN shouldn't be overly critical, but nor should it pander patronizingly to some tripe because the author happened by.

but it's wrong to generalize it as a solution for everyone

This is the fundamental flaw in virtually all quick-fix lifehack kind of pieces -- they project personal habits and failings generally, and then make broad claims about how to fix their own issues. It is the alcoholic telling you not to keep alcoholic beverages in your house.

I feel absolutely claustrophobic on a laptop with but a single work surface. And it isn't because I need multiple unrelated things fighting for my attention, but instead because I need maximal information for the singular thing I am working on. The flow of using all of the pieces of information is much higher -- for me -- when I don't need to task shift, shroud other pieces of information, and so on.

Docs/requirements/protocol specs on one screen, IDE on the other at the minimum. Realistically I usually like the IDE itself on multiple screens, inspector/project structure/source management on one, text editor on the other. Sometimes I split the text editor across multiple screens.

But that's personal habit. As mentioned I find working on a laptop absolutely crippling, though I have no doubt that there are people for whom it is ideal.

Note that this story isn't really about vomitoxin, or about the permissible amounts of unpleasant stuff, at least not directly.

While that was the lead in, the actual story was about Kraft leveraging the markets, including products they can't use, to get a better price on the stuff they can use.

And FWIW, while the human limit for vomitoxin is 1ppm, it's 5ppm for pet food, and 10ppm for livestock feed.

My reading of it is that the app on the phone is used to configure the button, and the button from then on operates independently (which would be good in that it would allows others to use it when the original person isn't around). It's ambiguous, though, and could go either way.

Given that it would literally only have to connect to the wifi and do the API calls when the button is pressed, the power usage would be minuscule.

They tell you specifically how much RAM you get, and there is no confusion. They also tell you exactly how much storage you get. In this case they very specifically tell you disk read throughput.

So there are a lot of metrics that are not ambiguous. Imagine if they told you that you get a "moderate" amount of RAM, and maybe it could be 4.5GB, or maybe it's 9GB.

There would be benefits if Amazon gave SLA style promises for these sorts of instances. When they see that they are falling short, they redistribute loads or add hardware to meet the promise. Otherwise it's generally somewhat meaningless because if you can't plan on it, you can't build a plan around it.

The overwhelming majority of those "winners" fail. These funds aren't anointing the king, but rather are just trying to make a bet, and it's a bet they usually lose. As you said, their funding gives the entrant a leg up (usually if there's a significant capital cost), but in this case such funding provides astonishingly little advantage of scale.

This isn't an example of a bubble. It's an example of a really comically silly investment.

Everything is relative. When someone is defensive and self-conscious, it's incredibly hard to give feedback of any sort without them feeling "like an idiot".

Sure, it's not literally "apple is doomed" right in the title, but exactly the same kind of FUD

BUT IT ISN'T FUD AT ALL. To make it even more comical, several of those posts are from serious Apple boosters (Philip Elmer-DeWitt might as well wear pom-poms while he writes about Apple). Apple software has had serious quality issues, and it is "FUD" to talk about it?

This is just broken thinking. You, in this conversation, are the problem. This notion that any criticism of Apple (such as the fact that they've let quality seriously decline) becomes "FUD" because there is so much defensiveness about Apple.

Not one of those demonstrate what he is talking about. None of them are attacks on Apple. None posit that Apple is doomed. They're tech articles, appealing to a tech crowd, that note that software quality has wavered, which is something that is utterly indisputable.

People who participate in this site can discuss whatever they want. Especially when the entire conversation is being roughly, and absurdly, directed.

The fact that you would even consider such an absurd response really sets the bar for HN today.

Indeed, that is one boorish tactic of making a banal, sycophantic comment. The use of a garbage strawman really put it into a higher echelon.

However I stick by my observation. The brain trust behind HN moderation, having moved on from their asinine slowbans and hellbans, have gone to something that they think is trickier. Only it's, again, hilariously naive.

This just dropped by -4 in a ten second span (edit: moments after another -4), essentially confirming the suspicion.

Do the moderators of HN have any comprehension of how completely incompetent they are at what they're doing? HN today is the perfect example of a profoundly squandered opportunity, and it literally gets worse by the day. It has gone from must-visit to "meh...everything else is exhausted".

But I get a little bit of delight imagining these -- and I apologize, but it is the only word that fits -- hacks conjecturing up some philosophy that makes them productive and useful, instead of destructive and futile.

I have had this happen numerous times, and the rapidity of the downvotes really makes me think it's an automated system -- that now that slowbans and hellbans are pretty widely known and rightly reviled, the mods just flag you and periodically you get a rapid downvote barrage. I guess it is supposed to make me feel insecure about my opinion or something.

"it doesn't take long at all to find some examples of recent poor Apple reporting"

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. Apple is an enormous company. They have enormous influence, and their products are used by the majority of Americans, if not world citizens. Is it really notable that there are negative stories? Is it not exactly that sort of tribal mentality that makes one react to such banal noise? I see a stupid story and move on, but some seem to really hang onto it and see it as some grievous injustice.

The other poster is dead on when they say that Marco's words were amplified because he is typically so strongly pro-Apple. But from an outsider that is a problem with Marco's words, not with the perception of them. If indeed you have nothing but praise, you do naturally lose the rational actor perspective.

"This isn't a conspiracy. Anti-Apple reporting gets a lot of page views."

And so does pro-Apple reporting. We all have a confirmation bias though, so if you're sure everyone is against you, it's going to seem like it is. There are thousands (millions?) of news reports published every single day, and some cynical take on watches, or profit margins, or ipads or bendgate or whatever are in strong competition with stories about Apple taking over the living room (new Apple TV coming out soon!), building cars, taking on Google, releasing the next greatest thing, putting the Swiss all out of work, making more profit than the rest of the universe combined, etc.

They are afraid that their criticisms will be magnified and distorted by the press and used as the basis of hit-pieces

Hardly.

Many Apple fans still operate as if it is some tiny, vulnerable niche company, and they're a member of the few. Perhaps this is some sort of traumatic stress of those early days, but it manifests in this feeling of great discomfort if your words are used "against" the hive. Arment, significant in this piece, incredibly claimed that it was a nightmare having his entirely valid, indisputable issues with Apple software lately, spoken of by "the others".

This is bizarre behavior. It is absolutely incredible. Apple is one of the largest corporations on the planet. It is an enormous money machine. And people are desperately fearful that their opinions about Apple might get known? Come on.

The whole "magnified and distorted" and "hit piece" noises is just garbage. It has nothing to do with proportionality or reality, it's just this sense that a community is under attack and they need to be defensive, and it's just bizarre.

Whereas every company is falling over themselves to hire the 10x programmer.

Is this true? I've been involved in a number of hires over the years where we quite specifically did not want a "10x programmer". We knew the position didn't pay enough, and had enough tiresome, non-novel work (e.g. building data processes for client data. Not big enough or interesting enough to be big data or technically challenging) that we simply wanted, in effect, a marginally competent chair warmer.

From seeing hiring and employment practices, this seems to be absolutely common across the industry.

Similarly there is another comment that opines that every programmer thinks they're a 10x programmer. Now maybe it's because I have a work history in places like financial firms and banks and insurance and telecom, rather than pure software or Google-esque, but this is absolutely untrue. I found that the vast majority of developers were simply careerists.

I'm surprised the John Gruber "little birdie" thing is treated as a legitimate source, especially in this case where it's outright absurd. John has retrenched to now Apple "basically" inventing it because wires and stuff.

Is this legitimately a bug, though? It could be tagged as a performance defect, but there is code like this through projects across the land.

I think the reason this rubs some people the wrong way is that implementations like this can be the result of the "no premature optimizations!" philosophy and its advocacy. I've encountered this firsthand at a number of organizations, and it apparently was somewhat endemic in the Ruby space.

Make something that works, and benchmark later to find that one magical hog that you can quickly change and then everything is optimal. Only it almost always ends up being a performance death by a thousand (million) cuts, performance and resource malaise so endemic that fixing it almost seems impossible.

FWIW, virtually every small project post discussed on HN has a variety of people arguing that the name conflicts with some other small project. Maybe projects should be named using UUIDs or something.

Despite your absurd lead in and desperate moderation, I'll repeat that you are simply wrong, and seem to be trying really, really hard to justify something. Something fairly obvious.

Firstly, to repeat, in most cases in this industry it is performance based. Arbitrary or oddball examples are irrelevant.

When you are laid off, even if it was because the project you were on got axed, take a look around -- did you notice the superstars on the team all got pulled to other parts of the company? Strange, isn't it? Did you notice, in fact, that as things started to look ugly that dregs got transferred to the project?

That's the reality of layoffs. That's how performance based layoffs work. I mean, you're arguing with me despite every single tech example absolutely confirming what I'm saying. People who are valuable to a company will be placed internally, and those who aren't will be jettisoned like unnecessary cargo.

You're trying desperately hard to try to load the word fired and laid off, but the majority of people who are laid off (in this industry) were evaluated and considered not worth keeping.

But talk about steel workers or something.

Everyone who is "laid off" is terminated.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-employee-review-sy...

Laid off. Done en masse. I could do this for every company and it is exactly the same. No, they don't say "your performance sucks! You're fired!" In fact that would be a legal quagmire because "cause" is somewhat capricious when the reasoning is "doesn't fall in the top 90%". Which is why they settle with nice departure agreements.

Are there some people around here who were laid off and are trying to feel good about it? The reality of lay offs in most situations is that someone intentionally put you in a situation where you would be laid off. It wasn't just accident.

Most organizational "lay offs" start by identifying the most expendable, the least valuable, the people with the worst performance reviews, etc. This is especially true in the technology industry. I'm not saying this as an objective "it is thus justified", but rather a simple reality that the same criteria by which some shops might say "you're not working out, so I'm sorry I'm canning you" is the same criteria that companies like Microsoft use to chop the "bottom" 10% or so.

It's actually a little ironic that this conversation is happening because you're trying to load the term "fired". Fired never meant "because you stole" or "because you sabotaged the PCs". It just means you had your employment terminated, often if not usually for banal reasons of lack of fit or suitability. Life goes on.

Aside from the fact that many people use the term interchangeably, getting "laid off" often means "you got fired at a company that doesn't actively fire individually, but rather fires en masse". Being "laid off" from a company like Microsoft is equivalent to being outright fired at many other shops.

Given that it's an intentional, purposeful design element of Android Wear, why in the world would they "hide" it?

No, they haven't. That this site is increasingly veering into Reddit land (with the same sort of absurd dogpile moderation -- countless of my completely benign comments have been downvoted by imbeciles who need to "punish" me), and this is on you, dear Dang.

Yuk, within minutes on some long forgotten post -- downvoted. Either you have some pathetic, psychotic users who literally follow me around, or you yourself put some comical downvote bot on me. Sad stuff. HN continues its descent to complete irrelevance.

Oh no, it's the clever slowban. So tricky.

Add that the performance per dollar lead is only if your workload is atypically multi-threaded. Intel has really taken a bite out of AMD's already tenuous market with the "Pentium" variants.

Currently when there is a data breach, the source company is usually on the hook for nothing more than signing victims up for credit reporting for a year, a scheme that I would not be surprised is actually money making (e.g. providing thousands of great leads for a credit reporting agency has to be gravy). On the cost/benefit ratio, security of personal information just really doesn't matter in cases like this. There are some other companies, like Google, who would take a serious image hit, but for a pseudo-employer company like Uber there will be no ramifications.

It isn't surprising that they deprioritize security -- the market doesn't demand it.

So actual reality is "drumming a rhetoric of fear" now? Reality reported on by a fairly left news organization?

Fascinating.