If you happen to be passing through an airport in a country where the government is known for engaging in mass surveillance activities, then you should take this advice very seriously, without any exceptions - you should always assume that your privacy is at risk of being violated or compromised.
> Certainly would take a lot it seems to drain it to 0% before the sun came up.
It depends.
Different types of batteries have different recommended levels of discharge. Acid batteries should not be discharged more than 50%, while lithium batteries can be discharged up to 80-90%. The Blue Ion 2.0 lithium battery is the best one available, as it can be discharged up to 100%.
Even in paid shared web hosting services, there is an inode limit. And it was more than a decade ago since I stumbled with this issue. Since then I monitor my file count and delete those with last TOUCHed of at least 30 days even if I have moved already to a dedicated server long time ago. I was caching complex database queries to the disk and did not bother to delete the files before.
I wonder if there is still a limit with modern Linux OSes and that is why Google is limiting some of their users?
I think Google Drive is abstracted enough that they are not running into something basic like an inode limit...
But this does remind me of having to set up a cron job on an old PHP application because the sessions were saved as files and it ran into the inode limit several years in :P
And, of course, 5MB isn't some power of 2 (as most limits are). Its hard to imagine where Google got the number unless its just some hardcoded constant.
>I wonder if there is still a limit with modern Linux OSes and that is why Google is limiting some of their users?
Ext4 has 32-bit/~4billion max limit per filesystem, newer filesystems like btrfs have a 64bit limit. Neither allocates the whole max size by default. I don't imagine Google drive uses an out of the box filesystem underneath though.
Btrfs is particularly special as the inode limit is per subvolume, so it's quite easy to have an impractically huge number of them with some cleverness.
> I wonder if there is still a limit with modern Linux OSes
Since filesystems introduced dynamic inode count it hasn't really been a problem. I remember ages ago you had to format filesystem in certain way if you wanted a lots of small files (say news or email server), but the need of that went away with better filesystems and growing storage sizes.
> and that is why Google is limiting some of their users?
On their side it's most likely on the number of entries in database, which usually is more than just storage cost.
It seems that there is no hard limit with ext4. It depends by inode size, disk size, etc. I searched a little and I didn't get any deeper than that. Anyway, df -i reports this about my 2 TB SSD
I guess that 122 M inodes in the first column is the limit of that file system. Much more than 5 M but Google Drive is probably giving a quota to users. No idea of which file system it actually uses on the disks.
LOL, this is another brilliant idea from the same company that previously sold thousands of keys for a single car, which could be shared by everyone. These guys are marketing geniuses.
Most cheap locks work on a similar premise. At my last building, my apartment key could open two other doors on my floor and the floor above. And I once stole a bike by accident because the owner had the same color and model, and brand of lock, and my key worked! I thought the lock was a bit stiff, and the seat felt odd, but I didn't figure out what had happened until the next day.
If they remove the guardrails, then we can truly assess its intelligence. Currently, humans are directly interfering with a certain aspect of it. If it can provide a response without Microsoft's stock being affected by removing these human-imposed limitations, then I would be genuinely impressed.
When I asked why NameCHEAP still used their name, despite no longer being cheap, I was downvoted. It seemed as if I was implying that I could buy apples from Apple. Ironically, some people have been referring to OpenAI as ClosedAI lately.
BTW, I am a Namecheap customer for 20 years now :D
Well, those people are right. Burger King isn’t a monarch either. It’s a boring complaint, and people are trying to a disabuse you of the idea that it’s not.
It's a response to people sperging out over silly things which isn't more acceptable just because it's a tech forum.
FWIW, "quit whiteknighting for the megacorps", when someone rejects a comment that happens to slight a corporation, is just as tired as their complaint no matter how effective "down with teh corporations!1" is on social media.
That makes as much sense as accusing someone of whiteknighting just because they happen to defend a female politician or whoever.
I don't appreciate your veiled attempt to conflate accusing a company of false advertising as being a kin to mysiginy and sexism.
Namecheap advertises cheap domains when, as covered in this discussion, it jacks up prices. This is impossible to defend even by the staunchest corporate shill.
Anyone can opt to go off tangents playing semantics games. Meanwhile, if a company portrays itself as selling cheap products and services and then charges a hefty premium in exchange for nothing, they deserve being called out on what amounts to false advertising.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
GP suggested the complaint about nameCHEAP wasn't well received because it's boring, not because it's wrong or unfair. It's not a semantic game I'm playing, I agree that the reason the complaint wouldn't be well received is because it is boring/not interesting.
Downvotes may not mean "this company doesn't deserve to be called out." They may mean "I didn't come here to wade through boring content."
Yes and every time a GPT post comes up inevitably somebody points out the amazingly unique argument that open AI is in no way open. No sh##, and it's as tired now as it was when it was first pointed out.
It's about as interesting as the armchair philosophy 101 HN comment that humans are also nothing more than statistical token prediction machines.
Wait until ChatGPT11 is embedded with Bing, Edge, and Windows. And it cannot be turned off because it will make the user's life easier according to MS' sales team.
Last project I was involved with deals with Google Sheets. They were using it as their multiuser read/write database. I offered to migrate it all to a proper database for FREE during my own personal time outside of work. Blank stares were all I got. I really hope AGI will soon be able to replace those humans that cannot be reasoned with logic. Millions were involved, hundreds of employees, thousands of sales, all being tracked in a couple of sheets. The faster data retrieval alone was worth it if we migrated it to a proper database.
Nothing you’ve described sounds like a valid reason to move “a couple of spreadsheets” to a database system which might require: budget planning, database administrator, system design, server, colocation, query optimization, report system, monitoring, user interface, backup/recovery plan, authentication system, change management logs, user training, business process analysis, etc.
The two planks of wood across the canyon work fine, there's no valid reason to build a bridge! That would require planning, architects, engineers, safety inspections, construction, etc. Let's just keep ferrying cars across the wood planks, we all know how wood planks work, and we've got plenty of duct tape for when they break!
This is a deeply flawed analogy. Hosted cloud spreadsheet has effectively perfect availability and durability compared to most database solutions, and never requires maintenance, and costs nothing.
Google Sheets, the product, may have excellent reliability, but business processes that rely on spreadsheets certainly do not. The point in my analogy was not that the planks of wood were bad products, it's that they were being misused by ignorant people.
Use wood planks as a temporary crossing, don't ferry cars over them. Run your bake sale with spreadsheets, don't run a multimillion business with them.
I don't need to link you to the resources on the astronomical number of problems that are caused by spreadsheet-oriented business processes and shadow IT. Using spreadsheets instead of proper systems shifts the operational burden onto humans, who certainly do not have perfect availability and durability.
> but business processes that rely on spreadsheets certainly do not
I wonder if this migration from spreadsheets to databases is what helps ossify business culture in older companies. With spreadsheets, change and iteration are easy with fast cycles. With a database, change is a pain and iteration cycles are very long since everything has to though multiple stages of review, approval, and implementation.
Interesting idea. I'd say probably yes, to some extent. Bringing back the human element, I'd say the businesses still stuck on spreadsheets are much less open to change than those who are willing to adopt database technology.
While long review cycles for schema changes are annoying, I find it more worrying that most businesses have zero review process at all for spreadsheets.
That's why your standard IT guy loves databases and hates democratized software like Sheets. You can run a 80% of business in a spreadsheet but IT Guy doesn't want to be disintermediated.
No, as an actual IT guy myself, our job is to support and improve business technical operations. Most of us want _less_ work. If we wanted to be intermediaries, we'd be middle managers.
I don't know how much time you've spent supporting spreadsheet users, but I work with them daily and I see first-hand the amount of energy being wasted. Stuff that takes them all day, they could do in a single SQL query. Probably wouldn't take them more than a day to learn how.
It's not about democracy, it's about doing things in a sensible way. I'd be happy if they used another "democratic" tool like Microsoft PowerBI and a fully-managed database.
Actually there were only a handful of people updating it daily and it was my job to make all of those somehow give accurate results. The hundred of employees I was talking about were the ones making the sales, no direct access to those sheets, and their performance is going to be evaluated with the data that was recorded within those sheets. Data retrieval is so slow, a month of sales by 300 salesperson is around 30k rows, we have to connect that to their attendance, the day whether it is a weekday, weekend, holiday, rest day. The store they were assigned. The monthly quota they have, etc.
I lasted 3 months only, got tired of the sudden meetings discussing why can't we give fast and accurate results.
The point the person above was trying to make is that the reason you got "blank stares" was that you were proposing replacing a system where the users could read and write the data, to a system where they can't access it. Everyone saw this but you. Im sure AGI would've seen it too.
Also, the fact that you offered to do it for free makes me question your motivation. I think you were trying to make your own job easier at the cost of the users no longer having the thing that worked for them.
They were using the wrong tool for the job. The R in RDBMS for the existing sheets, they were using R as in not machines but humans doing the RELATIONAL work. Yes I was trying to make my job easier, that is why mankind invented RDBMS right? To make our work easier and accurate? No?
The user interface is usually more important than the backend. If the user interface for a spreadsheet is more powerful, then that can make it a better solution than a database that has a better backend but terrible UI.
It can be very difficult to replace spreadsheets because the UI has had 30+ years of iteration.
Can’t they though? Presumably there would be a form that validates inputs that they can use. Part of the problem that OP described is that they were writing directly to the “database” (and OP had to validate input afterwards).
If you could match the same price, security, availability, mobile app/responsive UI support, audit history, comments, read-only sharing, export features, 3rd party add-ons, etc.
The "we will destroy all your accounts across our entire service catalog including any potential of future earnings if you cross our AI abuse detection thresholds" sword of Damocles is obviously unavailable and thus out of scope.
I hate to break it to you, but an equally likely outcome of the introduction of AGI would be to replace you instead, and give those users exactly what they asked for, even if it's not optimal (or improving it, but preserving the interface they are used to).
I am not a lawyer, and I do not know your jurisdiction, but where I come from, it would be illegal for me to work off-the-clock for my employer. It opens up many cans of worms regarding liability, accounting, etc. I have to wonder whether those sorts of things were going through the heads which gave you "blank stares". Did you attempt to compromise by offering to do it on the clock instead?
Me too so I asked ChatGPT to rewrite his comment like a high school student would write :
ChatGPT: I'm not a rust developer, but it seems like you know what you're talking about when it comes to detecting problems and traps.
My guess is that you're stuck in a situation that someone else created. They started with one goal, but found another good thing that they wanted to keep doing. They kept building and never changed their plan, and now you're stuck in the middle of it.
I think you were there before things started to get weird.
