I was really hoping they were going to finally be selling an SSD that was an order of magnitude less costly than spinning rust. That's about what it would take for the tradeoffs in reliability to be worth it.
QLC-based SSDs are coming very close to parity with cost/capacity of traditional hard drives. Terabyte SSDs are now sub-$100, which isn't that bad at all.
Note that the reliability concerns about SSDs have seemed mostly overblown, after years of abuse and testing.
I've seen the prices on QLC SSDs. I feel like currently they MIGHT reach the same price as spinning rust. At that point it's a trade between seek time and reliability.
Within that context I still see spinning rust as the longer term archive / bulk storage media. The QLC storage might provide a good precaching layer in more complex systems, and might eventually reach it's seemingly intended price point (rather than being a small discount to TLC drives that are more mature and higher performing).
The 'order of magnitude' I'm hoping for might be as small as binary (half) for me to consider it... but at 10X the storage per price it's where I hope something with no moving parts and less drive housing should be.
The reliability of flash is fine for everything except leaving unplugged for years. And if you want to do that you don't use drives, you use tapes. It's not a tradeoff at all when you compare to hard drives.
The fact that the mods humor you doesn't make it not white noise, and in fact it makes them part of the problem since it encourages it.
It is incredibly tedious to see people arguing about titles on every single topic instead of actual discussion. On some topics with less discussion it is literally the entirety of the discussion.
Are you saying that having clear and accurate titles for submissions has zero value? I think most of HN (and even the official guidelines here) would disagree very strongly.
