People are also missing that this extra bandwidth will help with mesh systems.

Not everyone is savvy enough, or has the ability to run Ethernet to every access point. The additional bandwidth here will help people who need better Wi-Fi, but are only going to buy an easy off the shelf solution

By definition a disaster recovery solution needs to be geographically separate. You’re protecting yourself from catastrophe, and some of those scenarios include your main location burning down, flooding, being hit by a tornado, etc etc.

So you either need to collocate systems with a friend who you trust, purchase colocation services from a provider, or use a cloud service to achieve what you’re looking for to truly have a DR solution.

As far as how to do that, the main idea is to have that point in time available on a system that, even if you get compromised, the backups won’t. The old school method here is to use an external hard drive or a tape device, and physically store that offsite. So like use your regular backup mechanism, and in addition to what it’s doing now schedule a daily/weekly/monthly job that backs up to this other device, and then store that away from your main location.

That’s essentially the idea though, and there are any number of solutions you can use to do it.

What cloud backup solution are you using? A lot of them offer additional protection that would keep a history of your files. You can essentially say “once a week create a point in time recovery of all my files” and then you could recover your files from that point in time.

This usually costs extra, and it makes sense why. They’re essentially keeping extra copies of your data for you.

How that is configured allows you to determine your RPO, or recovery point objective.

https://www.imperva.com/learn/availability/recovery-point-objective-rpo/

So you can decide how much data you’re comfortable losing by determining how often those point in time recovery events happen.

Did that make sense?

The real issue here is backups vs disaster recovery.

Backups can live on the same network. Backups are there for the day to day things that can go wrong. A server disk is corrupted, a user accidentally deletes a file, those kinds of things.

Disaster recovery is what happens when your primary platform is unavailable.

Your cloud provider getting taken down is a disaster recovery situation. The entire thing is unavailable. At this point you’re accepting data loss and starting to spin up in your disaster recovery location.

The fact they were hit by crypto is irrelevant. It could have been an earthquake, flooding, terrorist attack, or anything, but your primary data center was destroyed.

Backups are not meant for that scenario. What you’re looking for is disaster recovery.

Is there another app on your phone that can manage your calendar?

If desktop is ok the changes aren’t syncing back to Google, so it’s got to be something on your phone.

You’re right. I’m sorry

Because that’s a thing capitalism is great at? If the connection between capitalism and ruthless efficiency and iteration isn’t apparent to whoever is reading this then it’s really not worth the conversation

When the response to my question of “what do you think is better” is an esoteric shout out to a culture that’s been dead for thousands of years, that isn’t even in the first page of Google results for “six nations” yeah. You’re right. It’s not a good faith argument

Ok. Let’s switch to six nations.

That definitely answers my question

That’s zero sum thinking.

If it was 10k that is, literally, an order of magnitude cheaper.

You can’t have it both ways. The people who I know who have had cancer, and had it treated, the cost has been well over 100k. Some over 200k. That’s per time. If it came back it would cost that all over again.

So which is it. Is it evil that a new treatment could cost 90% less? Or should the capitalists do what they do and charge 300k for this better treatment?

Right? Bunch of morons who never had cancer, or never knew anyone who was diagnosed and treated for cancer, thinking a 10k treatment is expensive.

Communism Stan’s be Stanning

Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like

Lol. A single gallon of gasoline contains approximately 34khw of energy. An EV with ~300 miles of range, will have a battery with between 80 and 100 khw. Or the same potential energy as about 3 gallons of gas.

People are familiar with gas, so it seems safe. But every gas tank is a literal bomb, and that’s just for a car. I have no idea how big the storage tanks at gas stations are, but I’m assuming there’s enough explosive in there to level a couple hundred square feet if one of those goes.

Even if Meta doesn’t do it themselves there are likely hundreds of companies that do, and Meta can pay them for the data they want.

No. You can confirm the server received it. That’s different from a user opening it and reading it

That’s the whole point. They can force you to agree to updated TOS before they allow you to access their app.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation

Legally you have to be able to prove someone received a thing. It’s why you get served when you’re sued. An agent physically hands you the complaint (or whatever they’re called). If the papers were put in the mail the person being sued could say they never received them.

Tell me you have never worked in IT security without telling me you never worked in IT security.

To give you an actual answer, instead of pure Internet snark, the concept you’re proposing is called “security through obscurity” if you want to research it.

The TL:DR of it is it doesn’t work. If it did, all software would be proprietary and things like viruses wouldn’t exist. The source code for Windows isn’t available, but Windows gets exploited constantly.

How would that even work?

OP was spouting a bunch of nonsense implying that Elon tanking Twitter’s value somehow was going to end up with him profiting.

In the United States, publicly traded companies have responsibilities to timely and accurately report their financials. By Elon taking the company private, Twitter no longer has those fiduciary requirements.

That’s why I was pointing out how stupid OP was being, and banging on so hard on the public vs private company thing. Elon has, by all accounts, lost tens of billions of dollars in this whole ordeal.

Because he’s lost so much money I find it incredibly ridiculous people think this is some kind of conspiracy. Less people use it, the company is looked upon less and less favorably, and it’s reputation is in tatters. If you’re trying to make a platform to brainwash people into being racist the last thing you’d want is LESS people using it