>He may not be with the project now, but don't airbrush him out of history.
I don't want to defend Jimbo Wales (he's very touchy about the subject), but to be honest, even if he's a founder, Larry Sanger didn't contribute much to what Wikipedia today is.
If someone builds a free knowledge-repository platform and makes it available for worldwide use, and if that platform takes off to become commonly used globally, then I think some credit is due to such founder and innovator.
Larry Singer was essentially running Wikipedia in the early days though, until he was laid off, so in some sense we could think of him as a co-founder who was ousted. It's true that he didn't contribute much (as an unpaid volunteer) after that though.
I owned a nice little parcel, but my registrar had issues with a payment and the email got swallowed up and I didn't notice. Forgot to check up on it because I paid for several years up front at a time. Oh well :)
I read somewhere that after it took off, people started making copycat sites -- which inevitably sold about 6 pixels each. I sometimes wonder if those copycat site people were surprised that their sites didn't do as well, when their pixels were just as good.
Considering that one of the common critiques of Bitcoin is "Why should it have value when anyone can make one?" It seems quite a lot of people don't grasp that when people have a choice of interaction mechanism, there is value in going where the people already are.
I guess the counterpoint to that, for both Crypto and Pixel sites, is that the cost of making one is low enough that someone could do it not expecting it to do well and is just taking a punt on the non-zero chance it will do well.
For the rest of us, we are probably better off ignoring the many insignificant instances. They are, for the most part truly insignificant. You may stumble across one once in a while, but really you would have to go looking specifically for them to be annoyed by how many there are.
> Old Internet times that will probably never come back.
I don't understand. How can you say this on a post about a site that is almost the exact same thing you're reminiscing about? Arguably way cooler - at least WebTiles isn't charging money for spots.
Like most standards: "Because it's a standard". Kind of like setting a .body for a GET request, you can kind of do that, but why not do it the way it's intended to instead? Use POST :)
Sending a URL encoded form or some JSON in a POST request is also easier for most people to understand than the myriad ways you might format a query string in the URL (which may have a stricter limit on size).
You only have to look at how different services handle arrays in query strings to understand that serialising it is conceptually easier.
Comes up a lot in search or filter APIs. I'm sure there was some effort many moons ago to create a QUERY method for that.
Yeah, and also because of firewalls sometimes stripping body of GET requests (not responses mind you, we're talking requests) to a server, and also because it's really uncommon to put a body on a GET request ;)
Technically, there is: users of the European Union can get a full export of all data that Apple has about them, including all the stored photos. It can be requested from here: https://privacy.apple.com/
How does the archive they provide look like? Many zip files?
I would like to retrieve them and offload to another storage service but I don’t have local storage enough to hold all of it at the same time, unpack and then reupload. I would need to do it in stages.
Yes, many ZIP files. You can select the ZIP file sizes, from 1 to 25 GB, iirc. Although a few end up larger than 25 for some reason. And took 1-2 days for Apple to "prepare".
You can request a chunk size and then it prepares them. I specified max chunk size and it took almost a week to give me a list of file downloads from 45-60GB each. 31 zip files to download.
It sounds really weird that instead of making a separate utility, or allowing you to download iCloud Photos in the native Photos application on Mac, Apple requires you to go through a legal procedure.
I'm OK with clicking a button to download all photos to Mac, but there is no such button. Or maybe there was one previously, but it has now disappeared.
If your Mac doesn’t have enough space, export them to a USB hard drive or if you’re using the download originals option, first move your library location to the USB drive as also described on the link above.
That's exactly what I expected to work, but for some reason this approach failed for me on a new Mac with an empty Photos library. I enabled "Download Originals," but 10+ years of iCloud photos never appeared. There's no manual "fetch all from iCloud" button, no progress indicator, no way to diagnose what's wrong - the sync just silently fails. Luckily, iCloud Photos Downloader bypasses Photos entirely and pulls directly from iCloud.
You were absolutely right. Someone in the thread mentioned a status indicator, and it triggered me that I hadn't seen it at all.
It appears that on Monterey I need to pull the page down twice to show the sync status, and when I found it, the message said that photos weren't syncing due to "Performance."
I don't want to defend Jimbo Wales (he's very touchy about the subject), but to be honest, even if he's a founder, Larry Sanger didn't contribute much to what Wikipedia today is.
reply