Untrue. I get a SMART status update periodically with unsupported drives on a several-year-old Synology. Volume-wide deduplication is also possible to enable with command-line tools on the existing hardware, but Synology arbitrarily limits it to SSDs. I don't want deduplication, because I use my hardware for backups, and deduplication increases risk of data loss, but still...

The more important thing, though, is that it starts with this. It's a slippery slope, and who knows where that slope ends? It's clear that they are trying to pressure users to spend thousands of unnecessary dollars every couple of years without any benefit. Even if you don't use those particular features, what's next?

"So are you are not a parent or a really shitty one?
Parents are responsible for their children."

If they are not really shitty parents, then their children will tell them about their gender dysmorphia, clown.

Unfortunately people go insane from lead before they get gangrene of the testicles which is before death.

There is a third option, set and enforce reasonable limits. All or nothing is a fallacy.

IBM has lots and lots of offices in Texas, so no, that's not it.

Yes, but only to government.

No, regular GPS can't get you in the centimeter ballpark. One meter resolution is the best you'll get, infrequently, and requires DGPS augmentation (IMO, DGPS augmentation is common enough to count as "regular GPS", even though it is more than just GPS).

You can get centimeter precision with GPS + RTK, or with Static GPS, but neither of those are what people would consider "regular old GPS". GPS + RTK uses very precise ranging measurements to a ground station with a precisely-known location in addition to GPS. It's kind of like DGPS, but way better, except it only works fairly close to the ground station. Static GPS gathers GPS location samples over a long period of time -- days, even weeks -- and combines them statistically to get a very precise location. Static GPS can achieve sub-millimeter resolution.

Regular mobile GPS receivers get about 3-5 meters accuracy under ideal conditions. This improves to 1-3 meters with the addition of a common differential GPS signal, such as WAAS. You'll pretty frequently see 2 meter resolution when outdoors with a good view of the sky and DGPS.

Also, this is for datacenter drives so the computational overhead is probably going to be pretty small

That makes this study seem even more absurd. What used to be an entire rack full of 10kRPM SAS spindles in the datacenter has been replaced with a 6U chassis that achieves the same Terabytes with 100x the IOPS at a fraction of the power bill.

The electricity cost is not just theoretically list it is Actually provably less based on real-world experience in this case. The number of disk units in the datacenter is actually sized based on the performance required, and if you choose spinning disks you need about 100 to 1000 times as many individual disk units.

Makes me wonder what this "study" is supposed to be about, and what is Seagate's point for backing it. Is this some type of report attempting to sell some product of theirs?

We should look into genetically engineering strains of rice to absorb less arsenic.

Obviously we should also stop emitting CO2, but even if we were net zero today, CO2 levels would take a long time to decrease, and temperatures would continue rising for a while. And obviously it's going to take some time to get to net zero, so we need to think about mitigating the damage, not focus solely on emissions reduction.

Not so fast. If I need to install an Operating System or piece of software; the SSD completes copying of the file in about 5 minutes, whereas a spinning disk would take 30 to 60 minutes for the same operation.

The mechanical disk has to spend an order magnitude more time to complete the same operation. 5 minutes at 20 watts (100 watt-hours) is still less than 60 minutestimes 10 watts: 600 watt-hours.

But wait: There's more. The total amount of time I leave my whole computer including the CPU and MB powered on and running Is affected by how quickly the storage medium completes certain tasks.

Like this install task: With the SSD my computer spends 5 minutes installing a piece of software, and the rest of the 60 minutes sleeping. With the HDD my computer has to spend 60 minutes total fully awake and performing this operation. The spinning hard disk requires my computer to be fully powered up running in the background A whole extra 55 minutes while I wait.

This 55 minutes amounts to 55 minutes * 100 watts = 5500wH. So the Hard Drive actually requires approximately 6 Kilowatt-hours while the SSD only needs 5*100 = 0.5.

"Something in the liberal policies alienated a sizable mass of people. Think about what it was"

It was supporting genocide, not standing up for trans rights, which are human rights because they are humans.

"There was no point in the Democrats trying to score points with its own supporters furthest to the left, who were going to vote for them regardless."

That's an idiot take. The farthest left supporters stayed home because the Democrats were unwilling to go left enough to condemn genocide.

" Transgenders are not the problem, but the way it is handled. "

The way it's handled is to insist that all people have rights, and that really makes transphobes angry and scared. But you can't except anyone from "all people" or else you're fighting for privileges and not rights.

What most Democrats believe is that capitalism is great and the benefits far outweigh the down sides, especially if they can get away with insider trading. Only a very few of them actually give a shit about The People. You can tell because they keep voting in ways that benefit the wealthy and let us get fucked.

That the Republicans are much worse is very little consolation, especially when the Democrats effectively throw elections.