People are also missing that this extra bandwidth will help with mesh systems.

Not everyone is savvy enough, or has the ability to run Ethernet to every access point. The additional bandwidth here will help people who need better Wi-Fi, but are only going to buy an easy off the shelf solution

The real issue here is backups vs disaster recovery.

Backups can live on the same network. Backups are there for the day to day things that can go wrong. A server disk is corrupted, a user accidentally deletes a file, those kinds of things.

Disaster recovery is what happens when your primary platform is unavailable.

Your cloud provider getting taken down is a disaster recovery situation. The entire thing is unavailable. At this point you’re accepting data loss and starting to spin up in your disaster recovery location.

The fact they were hit by crypto is irrelevant. It could have been an earthquake, flooding, terrorist attack, or anything, but your primary data center was destroyed.

Backups are not meant for that scenario. What you’re looking for is disaster recovery.

That’s zero sum thinking.

If it was 10k that is, literally, an order of magnitude cheaper.

You can’t have it both ways. The people who I know who have had cancer, and had it treated, the cost has been well over 100k. Some over 200k. That’s per time. If it came back it would cost that all over again.

So which is it. Is it evil that a new treatment could cost 90% less? Or should the capitalists do what they do and charge 300k for this better treatment?

Right? Bunch of morons who never had cancer, or never knew anyone who was diagnosed and treated for cancer, thinking a 10k treatment is expensive.

Communism Stan’s be Stanning

I really don’t.

The whole topic, in the current political environment, is so polarizing and so toxic, I think it torpedoes any progress that could be made in reducing gun violence.

I believe gun violence will go down if people have better mental healthcare, better access to housing, and better job prospects. My personal belief is people who commit violence against others are doing so because of mental disease. If you reduce their stress, make their future prospects better, and tell them they have a future, their prospects, and mental health, will improve.

America is more polarized now than it ever has been. A conservative and a liberal will never agree on gun control. They just won’t. But I do think a liberal and a conservative can agree that violence is a problem, and that conservatives would be willing to consider solutions to it that aren’t simply making firearms illegal.

It obviously wouldn’t reduce gun violence to 0 like a ban would, but focusing on it as a mental health issue, and addressing that, would reduce other forms of violent crime too. Less muggings, stabbing, rapes, etc. I believe, taken as a whole, there would be less crime and drastically less violent crime, doing that, than any kind of firearm ban could achieve.

Edit: the downvotes prove my point. American politics right now care more about winning whatever hot button issue someone has, rather than cooperating to make meaningful change.

How about everyone reading this does a mental exercise. Let’s say liberals decided not to care about gun control, and that issue wasn’t relevant in American politics for the last 20 years. Do you think the current supreme court would look the way it does? Do you think organizations like the NRA would have anywhere near the funding and power they have now? How many single issue conservative voters did simply not show up to vote if there was 0 chance a liberal majority would “take their guns”

I have never said anything about gun control, for it or against it.

This is a mental health issue. Happy, well adjusted people don’t murder other people.

It’s interesting you mention Sandy Hook. Did you know on the same day in China a mentally ill person ran through a Chinese school and stabbed 22 kids in the fucking head?

Stabbings in Chinese schools are a huge issue. The person killed 8 of the kids by stabbing them in the head.

But sure, keep focusing on guns. Let’s put all of our effort into that. That’s clearly more important than free, publicly funded mental healthcare.

Interesting you’d label a guy advocating for universal healthcare and increased education spending a conservative.

You’re not even listening to my arguments.

Murdering another human is a sign of mental disorder. Especially if it’s in a case like this. I don’t think it’s possible to argue “this human is acting rationally, losing control of yourself to the point where you literally murder someone is, indeed, a sign of mental stability.”

Also, access to guns isn’t the reason people murder each other.

In Christmas Day a 36 year old stabbed 2 children, 2 girls aged 14 and 16, for no other reason than seemingly, they weren’t white. A fucking racist asshole decided to attempt to murder kids. Is this person not suffering from a mental disorder? Should we stop people from owning knives too?

Again, I have never said this was about gun ownership. People who think violent crime stops if guns are gone are delusional. It’s such a rhetorical trap. I bet conservative leadership in the United States love when liberals make this an issue, it’s one of huge issues that motivates their base.

This is now, and always will be, a public health issue. You want less people to be victims of violent crime? Give us universal healthcare that also covers mental illness. Make it free, make education high quality, and free too. Crime will go down, violence will go down.

The political discourse about guns disguises that entire debate. And it’s stupid that people fall for it.

Like I said, I’m not defending guns.

What I hate is people who attack where I live, with sweeping generalizations about how shitty a place it is. It isn’t. The United States is entirely neutral. There are good things about it and bad things about it. Every country has their issues, and reducing violent crimes to such a simplistic focus as “lol, guns bad, USA sucks” is catastrophically stupid.

One of the main ways I judge people is if they punch down. A good example of this is Trump’s feud with Greta Thunberg. At the time he was president of the United States. And she was a 16 year old autistic girl. Think about that. For a time the president of the United States, a person with literal tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, decided that a 16 year old, foreign, autistic girl needed the focus of his ire. That’s punching down. And it’s classless.

So if you think the United States is shit, that’s fine. But if you live in a place that you think is so much better than it, you can say that in a way that’s constructive. There’s no need to attack somebody or some thing you think you’re better than

There are 335 million people in the United States.

One asshat shot someone.

I’m not defending guns, shitty culture, or shitty people, but this is clearly a case where this kid has some sort of mental disorder. Literally hundreds of millions of families watched Charlie Brown and went the entire holiday without murdering each other

That’s just not true.

What is true is trolling is done by insecure pseudo intellectuals who think they’re smarter than everyone, but are too afraid to intellectually compete on a topic

Dumb people say dumb things. My guess is there are a lot less dumb people now than there ever has been. But dumb people will always exist.

I’ve never read any of those authors. Sociology has never really interested me, but good for you for learning history and studying what interests you.

Like, if you’re looking to engender yourself to someone common hatred is surprisingly effective. People inherently trust others who agree with them, and shouting loudly you hate Nazis is a cheap and easy way to gain points to the crowd they’re trying to gain favor with.

My take is if you’re so unconfident in your ability to discuss you resort to shouting you hate Nazis, you’re probably a moron. It’s like saying “I disagree with anyone who even SUGGESTS drinking rat poison.”

Like yeah, no shit.

You’re getting downvoted, but I’m not picking up the “just asking questions” vibe.

In context that quote is about race mixing. I had never read the book until I searched for that quote, and the author is, essentially, claiming human achievement is the result of a few hyper capable people, and everyone else is simply benefiting from their ideas.

Leading up to that quote the author is saying “species” (and I’m assuming in earlier chapters the claim is made that humans are not a single species) shouldn’t interbread because one is always better than the other, and therefore the offspring won’t be as “good” as the better parent.

So in context this is essentially saying the death of every culture happened because less “quality” humans started breading with the “quality” humans.

Which is hilarious, because after reading a handful of pages from this book I can only assume Hitler is the dumbest mother fucker whose ever existed.

No. You can confirm the server received it. That’s different from a user opening it and reading it

You’re hand waving how it’s actually implemented.

Like if you want to tap a wire you can do that. It’s not hard.

If you want to selectively listen to communications happening on that wire you still start by tapping the wire. Then you listen to everything and filer out what you need.

I’m unfamiliar with how this is currently done, obviously. But if the difference here is the FBI not using their taps, or the taps being completely removed when this expires that is a meaningful difference. And should be discussed.

That’s the whole point. They can force you to agree to updated TOS before they allow you to access their app.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation

Legally you have to be able to prove someone received a thing. It’s why you get served when you’re sued. An agent physically hands you the complaint (or whatever they’re called). If the papers were put in the mail the person being sued could say they never received them.

OP was spouting a bunch of nonsense implying that Elon tanking Twitter’s value somehow was going to end up with him profiting.

In the United States, publicly traded companies have responsibilities to timely and accurately report their financials. By Elon taking the company private, Twitter no longer has those fiduciary requirements.

That’s why I was pointing out how stupid OP was being, and banging on so hard on the public vs private company thing. Elon has, by all accounts, lost tens of billions of dollars in this whole ordeal.

Because he’s lost so much money I find it incredibly ridiculous people think this is some kind of conspiracy. Less people use it, the company is looked upon less and less favorably, and it’s reputation is in tatters. If you’re trying to make a platform to brainwash people into being racist the last thing you’d want is LESS people using it

It really wasn’t.

Great. So we agree. Twitter was a pubic company that is now a private company.

Glad we worked through that