partial_accumen

Generally a company doing something bad enough to encourage a large enough boycott to affect the bottom line is making quite a bit of money. They calculate the loss of sales due to the boycott over time and can plot when the value of the bad business is lower than the boycott. Many times they continue with the bad behavior in spite of loss of business from the boycott because the business might be at the edge of viability anyway. So extracting the last bit of value out of the company is a net win before the rotting husk is sold off in pieces for the value of its assets or the brand is sold to the opposing group that actually likes the bad behavior that was being boycotted so it becomes an asset again.

alwayshasbeen.jpg

Thankfully the other two haven’t fallen as hard as Seagate has.

If you want keep thinking that don’t look too hard at Western Digital’s scandals and catastrophic drive failures of the past. In my early working days I made good money swapping out hundreds of failing Western Digital hard drives.

Large enough that management schools are forced to teach about how ever real reform won’t be enough to save you from bad actions.

Sadly, in the world of multinational business, that isn’t how management schools perceive boycotts.

Oh, I agree with that. Part of the cost of a product is how much bother the consumer will have to put forth to get their desired use out of it. That’s part of what a brand is supposed to communicate to a buyer.

Okay, I agree with you that you’re not wrong to be upset at Seagate customer service. Its also perfectly within your rights to stop using Seagate. I just want to point out that if you continue to follow your policy of “one and done”, and the continued deteriorating customer service experience all companies are providing these days, you’ll soon be left with very few places to do business with.

There are only 6 or 7 airlines that fly out of my local international airport. I’ve had disappointing customer service experiences of one degree or another from every single one of them. If I was following a “one and done” approach, I’d have no one to fly commercially with.

Specifically with magnetic hard drive manufacturers, there are only 3 left in existence: Seagate, Western Digital, and Toshiba

If you’ve sworn off Seagate, that means all of your future purchase have to be accommodated by the remaining two. I hope that is enough.

What was Seagate’s excuse for not honoring the warranty when you filed a claim?

My logic was that in 2008 when I bought a brand new seagate hard drive, and it was dead before I plugged it in, they refused to honor their warrenty.

If it was a new drive bought from a retailer, why didn’t you return it to the retailer?

Bootlicker 🤡

You’re creating your own problem, complaining about it, and somehow that’s my fault? If this is your regular pattern, I bet your life is a mess and you have no idea why.

9k cash aint that much money nowadays…

Where are you getting multiple handfuls of $9k in cash (and you aren’t a cash operating business which don’t apply) that you are running into this as a problem?

Isn’t that $9k limit against pure cash deposits? As in an ACH, wire transfer or even old school paper cheque would be fine, but untraceable cash of $9k raises the eyebrows of regulators.

You could accomplish what you’re trying by putting the GPU in a second computer. Further, most UPSes have a data interface, so that you could have the GPU computer plugged into the UPS too, but receive the signal when power is out, so it can save its work and shutdown quickly preserving power in the UPS batteries. The only concern there would be the max current output of the UPS in the event of a power outage being able to power both computers for a short time.

Well, my mother has asked me to digitize her collection too and have me host it. Originally, fine, you give your movies to me, I host them, same thing.

Did your mom buy your computer and hard drives? I doubt it. You spent your own money, right? So she’s giving you a whole bunch of stuff which is consuming your space. Quote out the cost of buying components for a separate server for her with her own drives. When she buys the parts, build her her own server and put her stuff on it.

While thats an awesome pile of storage, I weep for your electricity bill.

Last I heard LG TVs run WebOS. In 2011 you could buy HP tablets running this. The OS traces its roots back to Palm Pilot PDAs.

A bad command execution in large cloud providers can literally make significant portions of the web unavailable, just by the sheer number of services dependent on it.

You can’t have it both ways. You’re trying to call out all of the benefits of running your own infra, but then calling out the downsides of public cloud. Talk apples to apples or oranges to oranges. The point I’m making in the post you’re responding to is that “rolling-your-own” as an organization, specifically a small or medium sized one, comes with risks that far outweigh the costs and risks of public cloud.

The convenience is not worth the risk.

That is not the opinion of non-IT business leaders make decisions to the detriment of the advice of IT departments. You’re ignoring that good IT decisions don’t get to be make by good IT professionals. You’re always limited to the budget and power granted by your organization. That is the practical reality.

So you’re recognizing that a bad command execution can exist in CDN or cloud provider, but where is your recognition of the tens of millions off bad command executions that happen in small IT shops every month?

I looks like you’re ignoring the practical realities that companies rarely ever:

• hire enough support staff
• hire enough skilled staff
• invest in enough redundant infrastructure to survive hardware or connectivity failures
• design applications with resiliency
• have high enough rigor for audit, safe change control, rollback
• shield the operations stupid decisions leads impose because business goals are more important that IT safety

All of these things lead to system impacts and downtime that can only come from running your own datacenters.

The cloud isn’t perfect, but for lots and lots of companies its a much better and cheaper option than “rolling your own”.

You’re on it.

With RAM the data is being stored as a voltage level continuously refreshed by computer. When the power is removed, the refresh voltage disappears, and the data it represents disappears. This is volatile storage. Infinite re-writes of the same bits, but data cannot persist without power always on it.

With NVRAM aka Non-volatile RAM (which is what SSDs are) data is being stored in a physical material. When data is written, the data represented by voltage differences, is used to make a physical change via chemistry to the material that makes up the SSD. This is also a MUCH slower process in NVRAM than updating data in real RAM. However the benefit is, because NVRAM is a physical change, you can remove power, and the data persists. When you power it back up, the data is read from the physical shape of the chemical material that makes up the NVRAM and then represented again as voltage differences when passed back to the computer.

The cost to this is there are only so many times that the chemical material can be changed. It wears out and is eventually no longer changeable.

What they fail to take into account is that the people left are going to be way less happy with the service, and actively looking for replacements.

That’s built right into the Elasticity of Demand. The economic term phrase is search for substitution.

"When consumers make buying decisions, substitutes provide them with alternatives. Substitutes occur when there are at least two products that can be used for the same purpose, such as an iPhone vs. an Android phone. For a product to be a substitute for another, it must share a particular relationship with that good. Those relationships can be close, like one brand of coffee with another, or somewhat further apart, such as coffee and tea. "

What this means is they can actively calculate the number of subscribers they will lose when they increase the price of the product. They can also calculate the amount of more money they’ll get with higher subscriber fees. They compare the two numbers and choose the one that makes them the most money.

Some executives in Los Gatos may soon learn Econ 101’s supply-and-demand curve.

Sadly, I’m confident they have a very good understanding of micro and macro economics and understand this action WILL cost them customers, but they’ve also calculated that they’ll make MORE money by removing the features and abilities that existed in the product before the change.

They made this decision to earn them more money, and they’re probably right.