It’s still the same issue, RAID or Ceph. If a physical drive can only write 100 MB/s, a 36TB drive will take 360,000 seconds (6000 minutes or 100 hours) to write. During the 100-hour window, you’ll be down a drive, and be vulnerable to a second failure. Both RAID and Ceph can be configured for more redundancy at the cost of less storage capacity, but even Ceph fails (down to read only mode, or data loss) if too many physical drives fail.
all the quadratic communication and caching growth it requires.
I have trouble visualizing and understanding how the Internet works at scale, but can generally grasp how page-by-page or resource-by-resource requests work. I struggle to understand how one could efficiently parse the firehose of activity coming from every user on every instance that your own users follow, at least in user-focused services like Mastodon (or Twitter or Bluesky). With Lemmy, there will be many more people following the biggest communities with the most activity, so caching naturally scales. But with Twitter-like follows of individual accounts, there are going to be a lot of accounts on the long tail, with lots of different accounts being followed only by a few people. The most efficient method is to just ignore the small accounts, but obviously that ends up affecting a large number of accounts. But on the other hand, keeping up with the many small accounts will end up occupying all the resources on stuff very few people want to see.
A centralized service has to struggle with this as well, but might have better control over caching and other on-demand retrieval of content in lower demand, without inadvertently DDoSing someone else’s server.
The problem is that Canon locks the higher resolution capabilities behind a paywall, and this particular solution is also low resolution. So it’s not really a bypass for this, at least not in the current state.
whatsoever she was doing didn’t work why they fired her ass.
You’re contradicting yourself, because you didn’t understand (or didn’t read) the article.
Bumble was a platform where only women could message first. It was a leading platform for a while. This CEO changed that to be a more conventional system where men could message first. After that change, the user base dwindled and the stock tanked, as you noted.
In other words, they were much more successful as a woman-message-first platform.
Technically, it is, but end to end encryption only covers the data between the ends, and not what one of the ends chooses to do with it. If one end of the conversation chooses to log the conversation in an insecure way, the conversation itself might technically be encrypted, but the contents of the conversation can be learned by another. Or if one end simply chooses to forward a message to a new party not part of the original conversation.
The link previews are happening outside of the conversation, and that action can be seen by people like the owner of the website, your ISP, and maybe WhatsApp itself (if configured in that way, not sure if it does).
So end to end isn’t a panacea. You have to understand how it fits into the broader context of security and threat models.