>>/10168/
> but this goes for the other two the three contributors who have been contributing somewhat regularly over the past 4 months as well and any oldfags here, like YT!

Encouraging tech discussion as a secondary topic for archival related reasons?

> /culture/

I know some lurkers here wanted more of a focus on:
> Active archival is a major feature, but a variety of topics are also active points of discussion. From analysis of trends and situations, to self reflection and representation.

and were annoyed by archival derailing it. I understood where they were coming from in the sense that having 100 posts on random crap would derail more substantive discussion but /go/ was kind of like that already, just with a slower tempo.  I think having a second, slower/random tempo thread for stuff is much better than trying to split this thread into two or three. A place to stash certain topics  sounds way more sensible. 

> Cozy Glow

Though such autism might make you pretty sick. Be careful and get well soon.

 >>/10173/
 >>/10174/
Might want to compress it down. Do you want him to post that exactly or just a synopsis of it?  

 >>/10177/
> Unless there's some desire for it, I won't be repinning: "huge ones" ones (like full site WARCs which are >10GB); those not intended to be online, like backups of torrents; and maybe some other things.

I am impressed you carry that out at all. What is the total bandwidth cost for those operations? How often does someone download something?