Absolutely not. At those densities, the write speed isn’t high enough to trust to RAID 5 or 6, particularly on a new system with drives from the same manufacturing batch (which may fail around the same time). You’d be looking at a RAID 10 or even a variant with more than two drives per mirror. Regardless of RAID level, at least a couple should be reserved as hot spares as well.

EDIT: RAID 10 doesn’t necessarily rebuild any faster than RAID 5/6, but the write speed is relevant because it determines the total time to rebuild. That determines the likelihood that another drive in the array fails (more likely during a rebuild due to added drive stress). with RAID 10, it’s less likely the drive will be in the same span. Regardless, it’s always worth restating that RAID is no substitute for your 3-2-1 backups.

The most encouraging thing in the whole talk for me was when he told a roomful of IT folks that they need to join or form Unions and they cheered.

Meaning car companies will either need to start making vehicles people can afford or the public pressure for public transportation will massively increase. Win-win.

Not true.

He can’t prevent anyone that received the code under the GPL from using (and distributing it) under the old license. He also can’t relicense code that he received under the GPL only under the new license.

If he receives a new license from the other contributors to distribute under a more restrictive license, he can do that because he has a dual license to the code and is not relying on the GPL for his right to distribute.

Oh See Paren Left Brace Whatmark

For loads of alternatives, see the Jargon File

Slow down there - you’re making some rather large assumptions about why they have guns. Sure, some people have guns for “self defense” (some for valid reasons, others because racism). Others have them for hunting. Sometimes they’re inherited and have sentimental value.

Edit: Also, kids aren’t the only reason not to keep them loaded. Keeping guns and ammo separately secured introduces enough of a delay to reduce the risk of suicide, for example.

Not a choice he had to make. The NFP parties agreed on a consensus candidate - Lucie Castets.

The opposite headline would have been more true. This ruling DOES disenfranchise those very same voters for state and local elections.

They won’t get to vote on little things like who draws the voting districts, who runs the elections, who certifies (or refuses to certify) the elections. Same for who decides on school book bans, policing priorities, medicaid expansion, or mask bans.

This may be a smaller loss than expected, but painting it as a win is disingenuous.

As a presidential candidate, she’s been perfectly clear that she does not intend to change that policy if elected.

Pornography is close to full sex work

FTFY

Pacifica then.

Not completely ignoring - I assume that was the swipe about “only engages in genocide reluctantly” was about.

Myself, I agree with you that we haven’t seen much sign of that reluctance.

Nah. This has happened with every major corporate antivirus product. Multiple times. And the top IT people advising on purchasing decisions know this.

Florida.

At the nation-state level with an ex-president target, pumping heated liquid through the arteries of a dead body isn’t much of an obstacle.

Probably not actually what they did, but seriously people - a single biometric security factor is not going to secure anything when a government has the body and actually cares about getting in.

No need to - “gay bashing” is unambiguous and hasn’t been used for decades to describe criticism of gay gangs that go around clubbing trans people to death.

Acknowledging that Zionists have robbed the word “antisemitic” of its meaning is the first step in reclaiming the word. The second step is to use other words to describe actual antisemitism so that people understand it still exists. The third is to refuse to allow Zionists to continue conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

You asked how to describe it, and I engaged with you in good faith to provide an answer. You responded with a second rhetorical device, and I engaged for the benefit of other readers. I won’t bother a third time.

[Edit: I removed the last paragraph after initially posting, being unsure I was responding to the same user in both cases. When I re-added it after confirming, I used slightly different language. Their quote of “rhetorical trick” below matches the original wording, and is a legitimate quote of my response]

A hate crime.

Because we don’t. The old name was “Sex Reassignment Surgery” (SRS), but the new names are “Gender Affirming Surgery” and “Gender Confirmation Surgery”.

A well argued point. Could have done without the random transphobic comments about “transsexuals” and “perceived gender”.

And that assumes no second hand