lazyslacker

I’ve found that people who worry that they have bad handwriting typically have very good, legible handwriting. This is true with a lot of things actually. If you care about it, chances are you’re above average already. It’s only people who don’t care and thus you don’t hear from at all about it who are truly bad at something.

Oh wow my bad. Seems more recent.

It was like six months ago. The first videos from him that I saw were the ones about Sony Trinitron TVs. That was a few years ago.

it makes sense but the comic is slightly confusing because I think the character should be smiling in the last frame, as if thinking, hey they didn’t lie, it really doesn’t use cookies

What is the senior architect doing in the server room, that’s the purview of the networking grunts

The calculations necessary to rebuild a failed drive from parity data stored on the other drives means that for the duration of the time that the array is being rebuilt (aka “resilvered”), you’ll have high activity on the other drives. So during that time there’s an increased chance that a drive that was already on the brink of failure is pushed over the edge. If that happens, your data is gone. Like I said it depends on your risk tolerance. You may not feel like it’s worth it in your situation. I personally only run a raidz1. I accept the risk that entails, just as people who use raidz2 accept the increased risk that entails over raidz3. There’s no limit to the amount of redundancy you can add. The level of redundancy that’s needed is a decision that only you/your organization can make.

Clothing stores are the worst. I love responding to “what’s your phone number?” With “no thank you”.

I’d say it depends on your circumstances and your tolerance to the possibility of data loss. The general answer to the question is that without using some kind of redundancy, either mirrored disks or RAID, the failure of a single disk would mean you lose your data. This is true for each copy of your data that you have.

Off-site backup is the proper answer to your question. All this really depends on your own tolerance or comfort with the possibility of losing data. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least three different copies of your data, each in a different physical location. For each of them, there should be redundancy of some kind implemented to guard against hardware failure. Redundancy is typically achieved by using mirrored drives or by using RAID of some kind. Also, if you’d like to know, using RAID in which you can only lose one disk in the array is not typically considered a sufficient level of protection because of the possibility of a cascading drive failure during replacement of a failed disk. It should be at least two.

It’s been years since I dual booted. If you want Windows to be default I’m struggling to think of what could be gained by dual booting over just running your Linux system in a vm in Windows.

deleted by creator

I think people who would say that might recognize Nirvana as more of a gen z fashion brand than an actual band. Like they know it’s a band but the first assumption is that’s not the driver of anyone’s interest in it.

I think I’m a pretty normal person. Unremarkable.

Actually you’re right, it’s that person’s prerogative to try to make themselves as comfortable as possible with the resources they’ve been given. They shouldn’t care about my comfort just as I do not care about theirs.

I 100% agree with you.

Perhaps your tastes have changed. I’m sure there must still be a game out there for you.

Reclining certainly does make my experience better.

I refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of a scenario that I didn’t create.

Ideally the airline should simply make it so that the seats can’t recline.

If we acquiesce and make up for the airline’s failures by taking matters into our own hands, that just enables the airline to continue to not fix the issue. It’s the same thing as tipping at restaurants. We have to tip because the staff don’t get paid enough otherwise. The restaurant is passing off their shortcomings to the customers. The system only works because we agree to participate in it.

So the seat is there and it can be reclined but I’m not allowed to recline it because… courtesy? What if there just happens to be nobody sitting behind me? Should I still not recline as a gesture of solidarity to the people who feel social pressure not to recline? The airline is at fault if we’re going through these mental calculations. Every passenger should feel free and unencumbered to use 100% of the facilities on the plane they paid for. The airline should ensure it. They’ve failed to keep their passengers comfortable if they don’t. The blame for that shouldn’t be passed to other passengers.

People of all sizes are entitled to use the facilities they paid for equally. The airline should provide a solution for you, not the other passengers. You should patronize airlines that fulfill your needs and not patronize the ones that don’t. I actually like the ultra low cost carriers that have solved this by simply not allowing the seats to be reclined.