If you look at places like San Francisco and the way wealth is pooling there, it's easy to understand why traffic congestion is growing faster than the economy.

If you put a bunch of rich-ass people together in one highly-concentrated place, even if all of them are working from home or taking Google busses to work, they're going to need services. Grocery stores, plumbers, babysitters, teachers, restaurant workers, you name it. Many of those sorts of jobs are not ones which are compatible with telecommuting--if my garbage man starts working from home, I'm going to be pissed!--and most of them are not of an income level which would allow a comfortable residence within the city where the job is. If you're making $30,000 a year as a teacher, spending $2,000 a month on a 400 sq ft studio apartment so you can walk or bike to work doesn't leave much left over for food and the like.

So inevitably, thousands upon thousands of workers need to commute various distances to keep their jobs and live in some level of comfort.

I realize that SF, as a peninsula, is a fairly unique scenario: it provides a high-value destination with severely constrained access points. Maybe not the actual logical conclusion of all similar circumstances, but a useful indicator of how things might play out in areas where money is aggregated into smaller and smaller groups who then take over relatively small and very desirable locations.

I think I literally couldn't manage without ssh. I always install tmux and vim on any machine I use, if they aren't already there. One of the varieties of KeePass is also mandatory for me.

--- SER

Thanks, this is what I was looking for when I clicked into this discussion.

EVE wasn't the game for me, but I am truly fascinated by it abstractly. One of the first thoughts through my mind after reading the headline was to wonder how it felt to manage logistics and strategy at that scale. I appreciate that you shared a glimpse into that aspect.

Interesting. I could swear I remembered reading a similar article where it was specifically Seagate that was called out, but I guess memory is an imperfect thing.

On another note, I like your handle!

I was working on a project with a large bank, and during one of my calls, the bank's project manager told me a comical story about their back-up procedures. They had switched from tapes to hard drives, and every day, when the truck drove up for that office's data back-ups (not actual banking data, but backups of all the administrative systems in that office), due to contracts which were still in force after years, it was a huge trailer truck with nothing to put into it but a single 3.5" hard drive. The contracts apparently specified a vehicle that could handle peak data activity with old-school tapes, and hadn't been amended.

Beyond cost, it just amazed me that they were putting a huge empty truck on the streets of Manhattan every day, and I wondered how many times that got repeated each day.

Or one seagate and a subscription to Backblaze!

Note: I subscribe to Backblaze, having had two back-up drives fail for me in the last two years. Luckily, it was just the back-up drives...

I'm just kind of amazed that Seagate is still around. I remember some years back, there was a huge fraud scandal where they were claiming huge volumes of unsold inventory to be sold in order to keep their stock price up. They were storing the drives in 18-wheelers and, at night, they were backing the trucks up against each other so that if an investigator wanted to break in, they had to physically move the truck, giving them time to respond. It was crazy.

Cue the paranoid right wing "Obama wants to take your Bitcoins" brigade.

Or they should require the user to re-enter the credentials during the restoration.

Technically, that's what happens. Safari doesn't store any credentials itself, they're stored in the system keychain and Safari asks the keychain whenever it needs a key. The keychain itself has a master password and its contents are encrypted.

On the other hand, by default the keychain password is set to the login password and is automatically unlocked when the user logs in. Further, most users choose to have their computers automatically log in at boot - so there is no effective protection if someone gets ahold of their computer.

You can change those defaults to be more secure. Apple chose not to make that the default as most people simply don't care.

Personally, my keychain password is different, my computer doesn't automatically log me in, and the keychain locks itself after 15 minutes or system sleep. This is annoying as I have to authenticate myself every time an application needs something from the keychain - something a regular user wouldn't put up with.