battery.

That, and a something that indicates if the computer (or, more specifically, each individual replaceable component) has ever experienced liquid damage or a severe shock/hard drop.

For the most part, the info I want (but can't always easily get) includes:
* Release date of the computer and release date of each of its major parts (CPU, etc.). This indicates likely time-to-obsolescence.
* A very recent and thorough diagnostic report. This indicates overall hardware health.
* As part of the diagnostic report, for parts that are expected to wear out well before the computer is going to be scrapped anyway, some indication of the remaining useful life. HDDs, SDDs, and batteries are your primary concerns here.
* A list of what parts are user-replaceable and at what cost and difficulty.
* A visual inspection of the insides and outsides to check for things like liquid damage, rust/corrosion, bad capacitors, and plain old physical abuse/wear-and-tear. This indicates possible "submarine/time-bomb" issues.

A certified repair-history or certified "mechanics inspection" is a plus but it isn't required.

After all, we are talking about devices usually worth less than $2000, not devices usually worth over 4 times that much.

What if I'm a DropBox/OneDrive subscriber storing hundreds of megabits per second to local storage that is also backed up to a cloud provider? I'm not running a service, but I sure as heck "need" ("need" vs. "want" can be subjective here) upload speeds at least as fast as my write-to-disk speeds.

I do agree with your solution though: If I really need high upload speeds, whether I'm running a server or not, I need to find a provider that offers them at a price I'm willing to pay, or learn to do without. If that means getting a business plan, then so be it.

"printer drivers" for nothing.

If not, better check the circuit or microcode to make sure the relevant opcode was implemented correctly.

Both quoted sections are from El Pais. As submitted, it suggests the first quoted block is from Nature.

Also, the Nature link got buggered up, it should be https://www.nature.com/article... "A biocompatible Lossen rearrangement in Escherichia coli".

Inkjets can get clogged if they aren't used often enough. If each color is used every few weeks you should be okay, but if it's been sitting on the thrift store's shelf for 2 months it might be clogging up.

If you are going to buy a used inkjet, either buy it from a friend or some other source where you know it's not clogged, or buy it from a reputable vendor that will give you a few weeks to try it out (but be ready to forfeit the costs of any new inks you buy).

With any printer, new or used, pay attention to consumables and parts that are designed to wear out and be replaced during the printer's life. Some are not obvious.

Someone probably copied something from one part of the web site's back-end to another without customizing it after copying it.

It could've just as easily said "You're application to %Placeholder Value% has been successful."

The problem could be at your end: If you use a script- or ad-blocker, it might have partially or completely blocked the script that replaces "US Marines" with the correct value.

Cost in energy != cost in carbon.

Some energy, such as solar, wind, and hydro, has a very low marginal cost beyond the cost of transmission. Sure, there's the cost of building the plant. Mining the earth to make solar panels, building those solar panels, getting them to the solar farm, and building a functional solar array and hooking it to the grid isn't energy-free.

Now, what's the equivalent cost of carbon? That depends on where the energy comes from. If, hypothetically, you use existing solar power to do everything it takes to build a new solar plant, then use that solar plant to run your computing center, the marginal carbon cost is pretty close to 0 if not 0.

Oh, don't forget the energy cost to actually build the computing center. Building computer, building actual buildings, etc. isn't energy-free. If any of that energy comes from carbon sources, the "sunk carbon cost" of building the computing center will be non-zero. Then there's the energy cost of maintaining the computing center.

Recurse (curse and curse again) and/or repeat as necessary for your computing center's needs.

I can't yet, because the cost of dealing with long-term nuclear waste isn't well-defined.

If the cost turns out to be "leave it at the plant forever and make laws so nobody can sue before something really bad happens and get lucky (nothing bad actually happens in the lifetime of any investors)" then yeah, nuke plants can be relatively cheap.

But right now, it's a big question mark. Investors don't like big question marks.

If investors think the next White House Party Change (WHPC)[TM) MAY make their investment worthless, they will be much less likely to invest unless they can get paid back before the next Presidential election.

A more reasonable solution would be to move the ancient drivers out of Windows Updates and put them in a Microsoft-run legacy-driver-download web site where users would need to manually download the specific version of the driver that they want.

Why bother with the Microsoft-run web site for ancient code that only a few people will ever need? This gives users the assurance that you are downloading the real thing and not a trojanized version by a web site pretending to be an oh-so-helpful old-driver-download site.

Your very long sentence was perfectly cromulent.

I could diagram it using skills learned in Middle School English.