And that is a direct lie. One often heard from systemd advocates though. Just as if it comes from some sort of play-book.

There is a difference between "attacks" and valid criticism. Calling everybody that criticizes systemd and its adoption into Debian a "troll" or an "attacker" is unfounded and represents an extreme form of trolling itself. One could get the rather strong impression that the systemd advocates do not want any dialog or have sufficient valid arguments to deal with the criticism voiced. Instead they revert to this form of primitive emotional manipulation.

Fail...

AMD produces CPUs in Dresden, Memory and chipsets are fully produced outside the US, ARM is British, the CPUs for china's supercomputer are made there, etc. These are global companies, sometimes non-US domestic ones, but never only US companies. You mindless patriotism blinds you to reality.

Result of your proposed move would be that the US would not get components, not the other way round.

Nonsense. The US is a technology backwater now. Even if it "regains" the larger number, it does not have the people to actually use this infrastructure efficiently, making it a meaningless stunt.

A factor of 10 is pretty meaningless in supercomputing. Software quality makes much more of a difference. Of course, politicians are not mentally equipped to understand that and instead want "the larger number" like the most stupid noob PC buyer.

The Google thing was pretty badly done by people that barely understand the subject matter or scientific process.

Fail. That is not what they say.

Unfortunately, the Google paper is mostly unusable as it has severe methodical errors and basically only shows its authors do not have a clue. What of it is usable confirms things however. (Not the only really badly researched and written paper to come out of Google either...)

And that is how you do it if you know what how HDDs work. Most people have not the least clue about the mechanics, physics and electronics involved and hence are posting a lot of techno-mythical nonsense here.

Personally, I had suspicious disks in RAID6 and checked then once a day. (Data was also backed up elsewhere.) Except for one freak disk that suddenly had 150 reallocations, but then continued to work for 3 years, they all died pretty soon, but I never needed those backups.

IBM says about 50% of time, and that matches my experience. Of course, if you are only watching for SMART failure and not suspicious attribute changes and trends, then you are doing it wrong.

Gives them a few more weeks or months before they have a service case. With luck, the machine is out of warranty by then. This is utterly unethical though.

Don't worry about it. For reads the disks try to start reading very early after positioning, so the heads may not be perfectly aligned yet. This leads to some retries and some ECC recovered.

Well, these are exactly the ones every knowledgeable person was watching anyways. 188 can also be controller or cable problems though.

As this is about indicators, it is correlation all right and it is meaningful. Of course, SMART attributes do not _cause_ drive fails.