I'm not going to argue for and against the first part of your comment - all I can say is RAID controllers tend to be fussier than you're giving them credit for. Disks don't have to fully crash for there to be problems - If disk 1 in a RAID5 of 5 disks fails, and there's one sector that's unreadable on disk 3, that can be enough for many RAID controllers to crash out and mark the entire thing as unrecoverable. And... it's not necessarily a bad thing they do, as that does mean there's unrecoverable data and the file system no longer has integrity.

But, regardless, I'd say your final points are good and I agree 100% with them, especially on application level redundancy. That's the direction we should be going in, maybe even deprecating RAID at this point, not because it's inherently bad, but because it encourages practices that may inadvertently mean you have less redundancy than you think you have (if your applications are all reliant on the same hardware, are they really redundant? Unless everyone's buying in to the model, you can easily end up with that situation by accident) without adding much in the way of availability.

> Are you saying that because larger disks have higher probability of single-disk failure, or just because large disks increase reconstruction time, increasing the probability of another failure during reconstruction?

Yes ;-)

It's exactly the same issue that made us all switch from RAID5 to RAID6. The larger capacities increase the chances of failure, and the longer rebuild times (which are getting worse) are also likely to exacerbate that.

> If it's really true that the chances of more than two simultaneous disk failures is approaching one... these disks must be extremely unreliable.

Compared to 30 1Tb drives, not really. The problem is the probability per byte stored of it being misstored doesn't radically change as disk capacities increase. And the probability two drives will fail at the same time was always miscalculated by people putting together RAID sets in the early days - think MTBFs, and the fact builders are encouraged to use identical drives (which I understand, but I suspect is actually a bad idea over all, the focus needs to be on compatible drives, not identical drives), and it's always been higher than people expect.

The HDDs under discussion will come down in price, probably to under $200 within two years. They'll also drive down the prices of smaller disks. So basically you're looking at much cheaper back up media (who uses tape these days when you can hotswap a disk?)

A $600 SDD will eventually come down in price (in terms of price per terabyte) but you're looking at it taking years to even halve the price, as Moore's law doesn't apply any more. And it really is based upon general tech advancements, on foundries finding ways to reduce the size of transistors, as opposed to this where we all kinda know we're nowhere near the limit of what spinning rust can store, and the companies that still make HDDs know full well there are technologies from the 1980s (like this one! It's a variant of magnetic-optical, the same family of technologies that the Sony Minidisc used, and the NExT Cube before it) that haven't made it into standard disks yet because there's been little point.

Anyway, the point is hang in there, it'll happen, it's just expensive right now.

Also as usual I wrote GB when I meant TB throughout the above. Hopefully you all understood that...

Too early in the morning...

> the chances of getting more than one disk fail simultaneously is approaching one,

Was meant to read

> the chances of getting more than two disks fail simultaneously is approaching one

But as usual I didn't proof read...

Anyway, the point is the scenario RAID 6 was created to solve that RAID 5 couldn't (multiple disk failures) RAID 6 is going to be inadequate for in the near future. 30Tb drives is around 3X beyond the limit of RAID 6's usefulness.

At these capacities I wouldn't use RAIDs 5 or 6, or hypothetical RAID 7+ (ie others that use the matrixing type thing) anyway (partially for the same reason we stopped using RAID 5 after capacities went over a terabyte), RAID1 with three or more disks seems like a much more solid option.

At some point you have to ask why you're using RAID at all. If it's for always-on, avoiding data loss due to hardware failures, and speed, then RAID 6 isn't really am great solution for avoiding data loss when disks get to these kinds of sizes, the chances of getting more than one disk fail simultaneously is approaching one, and obviously it was never great for speed.

It's annoying because in some ways it undermines the point in having disks with these capacities in the first place. But... 8 10G disks in a RAID 6 configuration gives you 60Gb of usable capacity, as opposed to six 30Gb in a RAID 1 with three disks per set. So there's a saving in terms of power usage and hardware complexity, but it's not ideal.

Leaving aside the fact protocols change and curl needs to keep up with them, the bug reports that are being filed against it are for alleged bugs. Hence the word "bugs" in the term "bug reports" or "bug bounty".

The same AI that gives wrong answers 50% of the time whenever I google for something? The same AI that is generating legal reports with references to hallucinated cases? The same AI that professors are using to screen out AI generated essays that infamously produces as many false positives as false negatives?

The same AI that's generating slop bug reports, which is that this article is about?

Why would you trust it for a minute "screening" bug reports?

I have Comcast with T-Mobile as a back up (T-Mobile Home Backup, $25/mo for full service but a cap of 180Mb)

I would not recommend T-Mo and neither would the other customers I know personally. I'm fine with paying that much for the service, the aim is just to ensure I'm online in some shape or form next time there's a hurricane (last one blew out Comcast's Internet access for about a week) But T-Mo is basically CGNAT and crippled IPv6 (VERY crippled, as in no incoming connections), and my router (which supports both with a fallover to T-Mo if Comcast fails) reports that T-Mobile has gone down far more frequently than Comcast during normal conditions.

Remember they're basically running an Internet service that's over their existing 3GPP infrastructure. It's basically infrastructure that's been declared "good enough" by some idiot in marketing who knows that "what the people want" is some Wi-Fi router that "has Internet" so you can surf the web and stream a movie or two. Anything more complex than that is just not practical over infrastructure designed for mobile phone use.

And the asymmetric speeds that TFA explicitly mentions are problems are problems with T-Mo as well. I get 40/400 rather than the 30/600 I get with Comcast. It's better on the upload front, but not that much better.

I think if people have the resources to start ISPs, it's a good time to do that. It's something we all need, and the big players have extremely variable service.

Yup. And TBH the shares haven't declined that much. $600b sounds like a lot of money, but Apple is trading at $200 ATM and peaked out at something like $230 or $240 when the market was hot before people realized Trump wasn't just talking shit about ruining the economy, but was actually going to do it. The fact that Meta is spending stupid money on AI at the moment ought to be frightening Meta shareholders, not Apple shareholders.

#clickbait

I assume older versions will suffice for older hardware - it's not as if that hardware is going to be updated in a way that requires new BIOS/UEFI features, with GParted needing to be updated to support those features.

I'm semi-disappointed, because I generally don't have great experiences in other instances of technologies being declared obsolete instead of becoming obsolete naturally. But at the same time I just can't think of a good argument against making future versions of this very special purpose tool support hardware that just isn't made any more, when old versions will continue to be made available.

https://www.dc.com/blog/2017/0...

"And remember boys and girls, your school - like our country - is made up of Americans of many different races, religions, and national origins. So... if YOU hear anybody talk against a schoolmate or anyone else because of his religion, race, or national origin - don't wait: tell him THAT KIND OF TALK IS UN-AMERICAN" - Superman, 1949.

Superman has always been "woke" on societal issues and has never been quiet about it. That's what makes him super. And racists unamerican.

Which side are you on?

Is it mindless slop? By definition, yes. Any venture into anything of interest is accidental.

If someone has genuine questions that happen to intersect with the LLMs, they'll likely raise them without prompting. We don't need this shit polluting *gestures everywhere*

So about half of the 63% who voted are pro-MAGA, and 37% of the population is OK with MAGA. So about 68% of the population are directly or indirectly pro-MAGA.

Now, I know under normal circumstances, just saying "No, I can't be bothered to vote" doesn't mean you're actually indirectly pro-MAGA, but we're looking at an extreme ideology here. If a liberal and a normal conservative have an argument about the best way to provide healthcare, and you look at them and shrug and say you don't care which wins, it's not necessarily an indirect endorsement of either. But when one side is talking about becoming a dictatorship, and the other is opposed to that... I mean, who the fuck says "Oh, one side wants a dictatorship, the other doesn't, eh, doesn't matter."

Silence is often complicity and it is in this case. No decent human being who was registered to vote stayed at home in November.

> enough to power 7,000 homes for a year

Does this mean "enough to power 7,000 homes while the turbines are in operation", or does it mean "6.5 years of energy generated by this infrastructure will power 7,000 homes for a year"?

If the latter, why now "will power over 1,000 homes while in operation"? That'd be a simpler way to say the same thing and to boot would include a round number.