an objective statement of fact should not be considered "absolutely insufferable"

As always, context is all important.

you mean the tab bar...?

Gee, I wonder why that's there.

Also there is an option, modify the libre source code that is provided to you.

because you can't do that in a shell over SSH...

I'm literally using btop on Windows because I want task manager to only be in the corner, with the terminal taking up the rest of the screen space. the only other way to do this would be to pin the window so the terminal is always under it, but then I'd have stuff go behind task manager and be hidden

instead I use zellij (tmux would suffice as well) and have a corner for btop, and shells in the rest of the space.

I really hope the courts just utterly destroy Google one day. Society would be better off, regardless of the collateral.

Requires a dedicated app? Too bad, if this worked with a generic solution like Gadget Bridge or health connect, this would be peak.

>euroderf

Name checks out.

I mean yes, if I can work in my sweatpants (or no pants), not have to pack myself a lunch, and more easily goof off when I feel it is acceptable to do so, I too would report a higher 'well-being'. You wouldn't have to ask me twice to work remote again - unfortunately I work in manufacturing which can't really be done from one's home, usually.

This is a funny thing to study though, I'm really curious what they hope to gain from this 'knowledge'.

My setup is a self hosted GitLab. From there, in most of my repos I setup repo mirroring (basically it just does its own SSH-based git push whenever I push commits to it) to GitHub, GitLab, and Codeberg.

All of these are free (if you ignore electricity cost of hosting your own git server), and each one is a backup of sorts.

I don't necessarily recommend starting with GitLab though unless you want advanced CI capabilities, but you're already used to GitHub so you should consider self hosted gitea, which uses the same Actions syntax and even has some interoperability with its action modules I think.

But yeah, my recommendation is just to push to as many (free) git hosts as you can. Why not take advantage of free code storage if it's available. Plus if any one host goes down you can still retrieve your code from the others.

They did, they contracted with a vendor to store and backup the data. If that is insufficient then just about every customer of AWS, Azure, GCP, OCP, and every other managed storage provider is guilty of the same sin.

I have to agree with GP here, this is pretty incredible. They contracted with a vendor to store their data, not to back it up. It's not a backup if you can lose it in the same instant you lose the data.

You're right, they are. If your data can't survive a single storage host vanishing from existence, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive one predictable or regularly occurring catastrophic act of nature, you don't have a backup. If your data can't survive a piece of malware -- with all of the credentials you have -- erasing it, you don't have a backup.

EDIT: Also, if you don't regularly test that your backups actually work, you probably don't have a backup. Lots of companies learn that one the hard way.

If you do not have at least one, but usually two copies of a backup in your physical possession, you do not have a backup. |o-o|

> If that is insufficient then just about every customer of AWS, Azure, GCP, OCP, and every other managed storage provider is guilty of the same sin.

Yes, they are as guilty! You say that as if it's a ridiculous assertion. Have you not read the occasional HN submission where someone is locked out of their cloud provider for dubious reasons?

A single vendor to handle the primary storage and all backups is insufficient for your most critical data.

But where are you seeing this vendor was tasked with backups? This looks like a single copy situation.

That's not a backup, that was their only copy of the data.

2 is one, and 1 is none.

I wouldn't hire someone with this mindset of yours to run the IT at my company, we'd lose data for sure.

Then that is just the 1 in 3-2-1 backups, and neglecting the 3 & 2 is a sin (wrt backup strategies).

I wonder the proportion of companies who store backups with a minimum of two separate vendors. Low?

They don't even need another vendor, they could literally have their own on-site copy. Then they not only have 2 copies of the data, but they're in geographically distinct locations, so an 'act of God' wouldn't take out the data either (unless that act was the entire world being destroyed, but I digress).

I don't understand why you were downvoted. There is no excuse for them to not have local copies. In the context of video production 55TB is nothing. They must have local storage that's significantly larger than that already.

Probably mostly by people who recognize that they are in the same situation but don't want to come to terms with the fact that their data is not safe.

Though, most individuals at least have the financial excuse. This station did not. (In fact, long term, a local copy of the data would cost significantly less than a monthly/yearly billed cloud storage provider.)

Tl;dr the author is upset that the slop generator will generate slightly different slop, and calls this perversion of the text, ironically missing the fact that the entire technology takes existing human work and perverts it in order to give him the output that he seemingly enjoys.

Perhaps it's not actually irony, perhaps it is hypocrisy.

This isn't to say there aren't correct statements in the article, but its framed very strangely.