Note that isn't illegal, it just means the company doesn't get to get out of paying unemployment when it happens. And that's only if someone is willing to challenge them on it.
pokemaster787
joined 1 year ago
Don't listen to what he said... But SD cards are generally not very reliable. They might be fine they might die on you silently after a week.
Higher quality ones are better of course, but the quality of flash in SD cards varies wildly. I wouldn't store anything on an SD card that I don't already have a second copy of somewhere. (If I want to preserve it and it would cause problems for me to lose it)
This is a pretty big overstatement.
DO NOT USE AN SSD to store your data long-term! Solid-state storage has a very short, finite life-span.
This has not been true for years. SSDs are generally more reliable than HDDs except in write-intensive applications (and even then... It really depends on what exact models you are comparing). SSDs have a life-span mostly talked about in terms of TBW (terabytes written) rather than years for a reason, if they're powered on and not written too they'll last as long as or longer than a hard drive. (Note: Powered on regularly, SSDs can lose data if stored unpowered for a long time (months)). If you just have an archival drive you're not constantly erasing and rewriting data to, an SSD is a great choice. Reads also barely affect the lifespan of at all, so you can still access the data you want to protect (hell, write-lock the drive even and it'll last decades if powered on).
What you want to do is buy an even number of hard drives, plug them in long enough to copy your data to, and then unplug them and store them in a climate-controlled area. bout once a year, copy the data to a different hard drive
This is just plain silly. Yes, the mechanical wear of the drives spinning up and down means they'll die faster. But we're still talking MTBF measured in years. And replacing a hard drive that's barely used every single year? That's not just bad advice it's creating e-waste for no reason. Also note drives fail on a bathtub curve... If you have two good drives that lasted a year, you are increasing your chances of a failure by swapping them for two brand new drives... The best thing you can do for your hard drives is to not power cycle them constantly, any typical usage is fine. Also mechanical parts can actually wear out from disuse as well. Even archival services don't go to these extremes you're recommending.
If you really care about saving your data follow 3-2-1. 3 copies of your data (live, archival (external HDD or similar), off-site), two-different forms of media (HDD, SSD, cloud (yes cloud is an HDD or SSD but they have their own redundancy)), one off-site (in the event of a fire etc.)
Honestly 99.9% of consumers would be fine with a 2-2-1 scheme, 2 copies (live and off-site/cloud), 2 forms of media, 1 off-site. If you don't trust Google or don't want to pay for cloud storage, set up a server with redundant disks at a friend's house. Just keeping a second copy on a server with redundancy is plenty of fail over for most use cases. 3-2-1 is for data centers and businesses (and any cloud service you rent from will follow 3-2-1...) Let's not overcomplicate how difficult it is to keep data intact, if I tell someone to buy a new 12tb HDD each year they're just gonna give up on keeping it safe.
I've heard that, but once I tried to refund a game at 3 hours and got nothing but an automated response (denial) everytime I requested a refund.
In this specific case it was actually a game I played 2 hours of during a free weekend approximately 4 years before buying it, played one hour after buying it to see if it had gotten better, decided it hadn't and refunded it. But Steam counts free weekend playtime towards the refund window...
If there's any actual way to ensure a human reviews it, that'd be neat. 100% it was automatically denied by some code just checking my playtime and seeing it was past two hours.
No doubt the "next-gen update" is just an excuse to slip in paid mods like they just did with Skyrim
They did some minor hardware revisions and "Slim" models, but yeah they were never intended as a "Pro" model with increased performance/graphics. Definitely not a "tradition" by this point
Not saying it's a good idea, but a lot of the complexity surrounding automated driving is actually because you are confined to a 2D space and have to follow roads/road signs. When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects all you really need is a way to detect and avoid obstacles and some navigation logic. Landing is probably the most difficult part to automate.
Not super easy but it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)
So they progressively increase closing force if it keeps detecting something but the owner keeps trying to close it. I can vaguely see the reasoning only if they aren't confident in the frunk sensor for some reason. I mean garage doors solved this problem forever ago without having to resort to something like that.
I wonder if the "vision-based everything" mandate from Musk applies outside of autonomous driving features? Makes sense to not be confident in it if it's just a camera...