mauritsd

This kind of thing gets posted every couple of months. Databases like Pinecone and Redis are more cost-effective and capable for their special use case, often dramatically so. In some circumstances the situation favours solving the problem in Postgres rather than adding a database. But that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, if you run something at scale and have an ops team the penalty of adding a second database is much smaller.

(I run a medium-sized Postgres deployment and like it, but I don't feel like it's a cost-effective solution to every database problem.)

IME (bioinformatics PhD in the netherlands a number of years ago) it's mostly still preferred in a (pre-)clinical context, not so much in academia itself

You're forgetting that when they initially decided to keep the servers they didn't know whether Kim would regain access to his funds or whether he would want to buy the data back at all. In retrospect they could've made the decision to do what you're suggesting.

I know conspiracy theories are appealing, but it's much more likely that they took a calculated risk by holding on to the data/servers for one of their bigger, well-paying clients (~1.5% of their total server count). Then, when the gamble didn't look like it was going to pay off, they decided to cut their losses and reuse the servers.