If there is a further good faith interpretation of what you've said you'd like added to the conversation then please point it out here and lead by example. Only pointing out you think the other person should have better respected the good faith doesn't serve to help anybody understand better, in fact it goes against the principle itself.
As it stands the most solid interpretation I can come up with is still that raw SSD pricing for a consumer, even though higher than listed, can come out low enough to be less than a percentage of revenue for YouTube but this still holds no indication about storage costs actually being that low but I'm always open to stronger interpretations!
- You claimed that the numbers I referenced were based on a clear scam. The resource is in fact the first resource you will find if you google "per tb storage cost".
- You stated that I had made oversights about total cost, something I never referred to.
- You claimed without any reference that the numbers I mentioned were off by multiple orders of magnitude.
- You said I'm "hellbent on saying this half billion/year doesn't matter". I made no such statement and don't feel that way at all.
- You said I was wrong about the way peering agreements are priced between ISPs and Google, but offered no other insight other than just saying I'm wrong.
- You just called me reactionary.
Again, I think it would be beneficial if you would respect the people you're interacting with enough to at least have a more constructive discussion.
There are plenty of scams to be found via Googling. You will also find many fake uSD cards for low prices as well, or other products. Google is simply a search engine not an infallible filter for what is or isn't a scam. The facts about the relative pricing should carry far more weight than the position in the search results.
> You stated that I had made oversights about total cost, something I never referred to.
The lack of reference to total cost is itself the oversight being referred to so it could only be problematic if you had referred to it not the other way around.
> You claimed without any reference that the numbers I mentioned were off by multiple orders of magnitude.
I actually referenced the other numbers in your original resource for the first order of magnitude. I explained the reasoning for the second order and I accept opposing reasoning if you disagree but you haven't provided any reasoning only reaction to the idea I'd disagree.
> You said I'm "hellbent on saying this half billion/year doesn't matter". I made no such statement and don't feel that way at all.
The quote was actually "If you're hellbent..." not "You are hellbent on".
> You said I was wrong about the way peering agreements are priced between ISPs and Google, but offered no other insight other than just saying I'm wrong.
You made the claim it's based on connections not bandwidth therefore it is your burden to provide some backing why it's true not everyone else's burden to assume it's true until they can prove it's not.
That said it doesn't even require knowing their all of their peering agreements to prove, Internet Protocol (IP) is not session based. BGP peering is done to exchange IP reachability information but it knows nothing of the sessions between those IPs as session information is another level up above the internet in the network stack https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/UD...
.
Again though none of this is providing what the more accurate good faith interpretation should have been. These are simply further reactions to my given interpretation.
> You just called me reactionary.
I have and you've said multiple things to me that could be taken worse than that but it'd be counterproductive to focus on these kinds of minor things when the goal is constructive conversation so I don't feel the desire to end messages with callouts about them
