dylan604

I'd go with fewer people having experience driving not in a city, at least in this forum making the claims as GP

I would lean towards the urbanization of the land as well. I rarely get bugs on my car in the city, but as soon as I head out to the country at night my car is covered. I had to stop at a gas station back in May not for gas but just to squeegee the windscreen so I could see again.

I think they just all collectively got tired of hearing my dad's punny about "it doesn't have the guts to do that again" any time a bug squashed on the windscreen.

A cheaply made bulb doesn't really support your theory though. Before LEDs, the anti-bug yellow incandescent bulb was available. It puts of a horrendous light and most people didn't like them. It's in the top 3 of lights that I do not like: 1) anything CFL, 2) any cool white (>3600K) light at night, 3) ugly yellow anti-bug light, 4) whatever the ugly greenish light 7-11 uses at some gas stations, 5) 4300K fluoro tubes.

Ever used a blacklight outdoors? They are not bright, but will be covered in bugs.

> Sky is always brighter than the land, moon is not required.

Speaking of things being wrong...how can you come to this conclusion? There are many beaches where turtle hatchlings get confused by all of the lights on land where they crawl away from the ocean instead of towards it. Land is so bright, that the vast majority of humans can no longer see the night sky. So again I ask, how do you come to the conclusion that land is darker than the sky?

Honestly, I expect any of those free VPN services that require an app install to be doing precisely this. At this point, I just assume anything with "free" in it will cost me more than if I just paid for something instead.

Why are you so surprised that the US gov't is being spied on? Of course they are. Why/how could you ever suspect they would not be? How Polyanna can one be to think this way?

Not sure which direction you're intending this. The NSA is making special phones to protect politicians, or to make it easier to ensure they can read everything?

Before the most recent elections, people voted for an unwell person to lead the country. So it's not just someone can obtain the position, but that people actually chose to put one in office. Twice. Although, it was less well known on the first one.

> We are talking about highly educated people

That's a bit of charity isn't it? Lot's of people in tech that really not that clever even if they are smart. Also, people in HR aren't as tech savvy.

I had a really bad meeting one day that became the straw that broke the camel's back. When I went back to my desk, I saw an interesting job posting. I immediately fired up the company's copy of Word to draft up a resume, and used the company computer to send the email from my personal account. Less than a month later, I was working for the new company. It was done intentionally. I almost sent the resume via company email, but I really wanted to ensure I could access any response.

Hi Bob, why are you using your personal laptop at your desk instead of the company's laptop?

It'll be hard to time a job opening receiving interviews to line up with intrusion tests in a way that people would not be on guard against it in a way not normal.

Ha! Where do I go to file a restore request with the NSA? Surely they have a online portal to make these requests easy for people, right?

Now you're twisting my intent. Commingling client content is something I avoid. I prefer the ability to just give a client a copy of a device rather than digging out content. Multiple copies of the same data is just expected to be understood at this stage of the discussion, and the implication that I'd only have one is just bad intent on your part.

It's a total loss only for people that were too cheap to pay for multi-regional data storage. Most people balk at monthly S3 fees, so willingly paying double the cost is a non-starter for those led by the bean counters. Disaster recovery is a known thing that should not be blamed on the loss of a single data center in a stupid war. AWS even has automation of duplicating selected data to another region.

More specifically, geographically separated multiple locations.

I've never used tape drive hardware compression. It would not have done anything as the vast majority of data was large video assets. It was my understanding that using the built-in hardware compression was universal between devices.

The professional video tape decks had separate read/write heads. The digital formats could do a pre-read by having the playback head in front of the record head. The signal could then be routed through whatever equipment in the studio to do whatever one needed and then recorded back to itself with the updated video. This was only allowed on a source with a CLONE sticker to guarantee the ORIGINAL was not being updated this way.

Been a long time since I've dealt with audio gear, but I'm pretty sure they also had separate playback/record heads in the tape path as well.

Yeah, we'd do 1000 in a year easy, but that number is easy to grow when every write takes 3 tapes. We had 3 robot towers each with 10 drives in them in our facility, and there were others at other facilities. There was an entire department for interacting with them. If the tape with your data was in a robot, you could have the restore started within an hour. If the tape was in the onsite library, it would be within a few hours as they decided what tape to unload from a robot.

And if that drive dies, 500 shoots die with it. For proper archival, each project gets its own backup device not shared with other projects. At least for professional jobs where I got paid this is how I handle it. For my personal projects, my storage is a cluttered as my mind strewn across multiple storage devices/formats.

and what do the cloud providers use to back it up? it there a cloud for the cloud? we're close to an Inception like multiple levels of cloud

Anyone that's never had the (dis)pleasure of working with tapes, there's some gotchas to know about before archiving and forgetting about it.

When you create an archive, do not skip the step of reading it back. I'm not talking about just having the system confirm it is readable. I mean actually restoring the data from the tape. I've had tapes fail to retrieve data off of the tape even though the writing app confirmed it was readable.

Drives can have issues reading data written by another drive. Drives can have issues reading a tape it wrote itself.

Why write one when you can write two at twice the time/cost? In all of my experience with tape, I've never written just one tape. In the early days of DVDs, the images were written to LTO to send to have the discs pressed. Two were always sent on the chance one wasn't readable and schedules were so tight that the loss of a couple of days to send a new tape would wreck delivery dates. Another facility wrote three tapes: one kept on site, one sent to IronMountain, one sent to the client directly. Plenty of occasions saw the local copy unreadable and the IronMountain copy was retrieved. These were managed by large robotic tape libraries so each tape was written in a different drive at the same time so it was 3x cost while only 1x time.

Use the drive cleaning cassette as recommended. Your dirty heads can cause the data to not be written/read correctly depending on which head is dirty. If you're having issues reading, clean the heads before giving up on the tape. If you're having issues reading a tape just written, do not think someone else will be able to read it.

Ensure whoever might be using a tape you've written understands what was used to write the tape. Not all archivers are compatible. If you use the tar command to write to tape, people using a GUI app won't be able to read it.

Sounds like a mixed mode disc where it defaults as an audio CD, but has the data portion available for data.

oh, how quickly we forget the infamous autorun debacle of the CD-ROM

You should look for Blu-ray drives instead of Bluray which does not exist /s

Back around 2007 during the red vs blue HD laser format war, the spelling was hammered into me as the incorrect spelling was tirelessly brought to one's attention. Since we're going down memory lane on shiny discs, I couldn't resist bringing this one back too

That's interesting as it is also visible with a crontab -l so that new scripts can avoid using the same second. However, if you have a farm of machines with the same hardcoded value, they will all still stampede at the same time just not at the top of the minute. By allowing a random value, their start times are slightly offset with in the minute. Is the precise 60s consistent interval really that critical or just that each machine checks once per minute-ish?

Yes, thanks for allowing me to offload my RAM to yours!

Sounds like they've been set up as cron tasks. I've always been unhappy with the 1 minute granularity of cron tasks. Only thing I could come up with was putting a sleep(random()) type of line to avoid a thundering herd type of issue.