A private company issuing its own currency and selling it to us at a profit? Why, that's just like the Federal Reserve, which despite the name is a private company just like Apple or Microsoft. Imagine the government appointing the boards of those companies and you get the idea. Why do we need a company to sell our own money to us? Why can't the US Treasury just print it instead? JFK had the same idea and issued United States Notes. He was assassinated shortly thereafter. LBJ immediately ended the program.

United States Notes are collectors' curios today. My grandfather had some, along with rolls of silver quarters before the Fed turned them into worthless nickel-clad copper.

Editing a spreadsheet with OpenOffice. It crashed and said it didn't have permission to write to some directory in C:/user. 30 minutes of work lost. I get it, fixing bugs is boring and open source developers prioritize new features because that's what gets them their next gig. Report the bug? Tried that many times back in the day. Gets marked notabug or wontfix and I was rudely toly told off to fix it myself or hire someone to fix it. Won't get fooled again.

You seem to be math challenged, sparky.

California has 15,700 MWh of battery capacity but uses 460,000 MWh per day. Puny fraction capable of being stored.

I'm retired now but was a nuke power plant scheduler.

you're funny. It is advancing civilization to let jobs that can be done by machines, to be done by machines. If you want to pound your laundry on rocks no one is stopping you.

USA is still at the forefront of biotech, ai, advanced digital chips, space exploration

But, seems we have more useless whiners like you now.

Doesn't the Nissan Leaf get about 60 miles?

I was looking at a cheap used one that was down to 45 miles, I think.

30 miles gets me to town and back so it would only last a few years at that rate.

Bad idea. When evil fights evil, evil always wins.

TL;DR: If you depend on only one strategy for your absolutely business critical backups, you are in for failure and bankruptcy.

BackBlaze is a bit shy about telling us exactly what's on the back end of their system. On SWIFT object store, the configuration specifies the number of copies of an object, typically 3 but that can be set to whatever makes sense as long as it's +1. As long as two are available, you get your stuff. If only one copy is available, then you can't download it until someone replaces one of the two drives that failed or fixes the server those drives are attached to or corrects the networking between replication server pools in the case of Geographically Separated silos. Replication daemons ensure no copies of an object are stored on the same server, let alone drive and that the quorum is maintained ... .and that failed drives are promptly reported, flaky servers are comforted, and hallucinating networks are sobered up.

Bit rot does occur. Times it does are either catastrophic events in the DC or failure to maintain the ring by failures of maintenance (not done, no parts, lack of funds...). Keep in mind all object stores are "eventual consistency" systems. You upload, you'll get an OK as soon as quorum minus 1 is met. On a three copy system when two are committed and complete, you get the kiss off. The third will complete "eventually". Usually within seconds but weeks is possible too. It is also possible to get a revision of a object that is older than the other two. Using unique naming of an object would avoid that, since you can't change an object, only download, make the change, then reupload the entire object. When depends on factors of internetworking traffic, latency, maintenance... in short, availability. Good quick read on that is Jon Johnson's "The CAP theorem". Or, if you want the real deep dive, the architecture docs on SWIFT were where I learned - maybe there's better, but I don't know. They are somewhere around on NASA's site last I knew in 2012.

Fusion Energy would, eventually, be cheaper than all other forms of energy.

Fusion Energy would stop Global Warming because the carbon dioxide and other pollution of fuels would eventually be eliminated.

Remember that we are dealing with an at scale system with Backblaze. Other than cache (Which I don't think typical object stores use except for the database ... maybe), BackBlaze would be using mechanical drives. Using SSD drives for what is essentially an object store[1] is a waste of capex.
The SWIFT object store data centers I ran typically have 4, 5, 8 or 16 TB drives, 90+ per server, and the boot drive is typically either RAID 0 or 1, but that's the extent of "fancy stuff" for disk drives. I never saw SSD in the object store. File and Block, yes, that was the rule rather than the exception. One of my former team mates told me that the company is up past 100 tons of hard disk drives per object store silo. They have [lots and lots of] data centers.

[1]
Recap:
Block Store == like a hard disk, a series of disk blocks are presented. Atomic changes are possible. Used for things that change a part at a time. SAN
File Store == Like a network share, a file system is presented. Atomic changes are possible Used for things that change a part at a time. NAS
Object Store == Non-Atomic - something like a porcelain sculpture. If you want to change it, you need to destroy it and make it new. Used for things that typically do not change at all, like completed video, accounting transaction snapshots, or .... backups!

83 GWh for entire USA is not "kicking ass", that is puny. Maybe someday but that day is not today.

My ICE vehicle takes 4 minutes to "charge" and will go 530 miles. Your overpriced toy can't.

You clearly are ignorant of reality. Without looking it up, what percent of civlizations power is met by fossil fuel currently?

You are the clown.

you don't know the meaning of what you linked, it doesn't rebut the article at all

supremacy in what realm? carbon pollution, making 2.5 times that but with only twice the power generation for four times as many people? manufacturing mostly low quality crap?