When those 1s and 0s are deleted and that delete is replicated (or other catastrophic change, such as ransomware) you presumably don't have the ability to restore if all you're doing is replication. A strategy that layers replication + backup/versioning is the goal.
I'll add that _usually_ a backup strategy includes generational backups of some kind. That is daily, weekly, monthly, etc to hedge against individually impacted files as mentioned.
Ideally there is also an offsite and inaccessible from the source component to this strategy. Usually this level of robustness isn't present in a "replication" setup.
Put more simply, backups account for and mitigate the common risks to data during storage while minimizing costs, ransomware is one of those common risks. Its organizational dependent based on costs and available budget so it varies.
Long term storage usually has some form of Forward Error Correction (FEC) protection schemes (for bitrot), and often backups are segmented which may be a mix of full and iterative, or delta backups (to mitigate cost) with corresponding offline components (for ransomware resiliency), but that too is very dependent on the environment as well as the strategy being used for data minimization.
> Usually this level of robustness isn't present in a "replication" setup.
Exactly, and thinking about replication as a backup often also gives those using it a false sense of security in any BC/DR situations.
I hope they'll go away from this, or at least give the option. I won't use their password/key storage until they do. 2FA is only as good as the weakest link, and SMS is the weakest possibility.
Where would you like to see it be more relaxed? While the documentation has some pretty strong recommendations, other than the top 5 accounts, you can pretty much do as you wish.
Having spaces in account names and not having to type the currency for every transaction would be nice. Though, I will say it's been quite a few years, so perhaps things have changed.
Not when it's an event in the past. When the event in the past you know which TZ rules to apply for conversion. The issues arise for the future because you don't know what change may occur.
I think the issue is that so many of us were brought in on something pretty simple, "GMail for Domains", that has become so much more than we ever asked for. And in return we've gotten a lesser product (the Google accounts are handicapped in many ways) and a painful migration experience to leave (see inability to take Google Play purchases as one example). It's a terrible bait and switch now that they have years of history to amplify the pain of leaving.
You're right the fee is not unreasonable for the services offered, especially compared to the competition. But given it's not really what many were actually after (we just wanted a @example.com gmail account!) and are left with a handicapped account, why would we want to pay up?
> I wonder if they considered having a couple of big lights in center field for the ump to get this info visually.
I think having the automated call kept semi-private is part of the design. Umps aren’t big fans of getting shown up. Maybe in future iterations, but the only way this is getting adopted up front is if the ump still has some “control.”
But that's exactly what the article did without actually mentioning Challenger. A very strange article. "It trails only these four shuttle orbiters (we're not going to mention the fifth)"
I agree. The way it's worded leaves out important information. They could have said "It trails only four of the five shuttles", because the fact that it outlasted one of them is an important data point.
Helicopter requires rover to be near by as means of communications as helicopter itself can not directly communicate. Thus, it originally had a limited time as the rover needs to move on to other activities.
Yes, that is the plan now. It was not the original because…we’ve never flown on another planet before. It was successful so they are changing the parameters after learning more. SCIENCE!
About 600m per flight. Actually it's flight time is limited by motor heat buildup, not battery capacity.
If they want to scout each landing site, that requires doing a round-trip one day to get photos and flying out the next day, which limits it to a maximum range of 300m every two days.
The previous rover, Curiosity has driven an average of 8m per day (usually stopping for a few days to to science then driving in bursts of ~30m/day) Ingenuity should be able to keep up.
