jachriga
It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.
Title: How Long Can SSD Store Data Unpowered? Year 2 Update
- The video provides a two-year update on SSD data retention tests conducted by HT Wingnut, focusing on SSDs left unpowered.
- Four inexpensive 128 GB TLC SSDs were tested: two were heavily used (over 280 TB written), while two were kept fresh.
- A folder with over 100 GB of random data was created for testing, with hash values generated for validation.
- The testing timeline was extended, with the initial data written on September 2, 2022, and the follow-up conducted on November 23, 2024.
- The fresh SSD maintained its integrity, with 100% data retention and no performance degradation after two years.
- The heavily used SSD showed significant corruption, with four files unaccounted for and a performance drop during read tests.
- The audit time for the well-worn SSD increased from about 10 minutes to over 42 minutes, indicating severe performance degradation.
- The fresh SSD's read performance remained stable at approximately 470 MB/s, while the worn SSD's performance was inconsistent and slower.
- Both SSDs showed some error recovery, but the heavily used SSD had 12 uncorrectable sectors after testing.
- The fresh SSD will be re-evaluated in one year, while the worn SSD's corruption raises concerns about long-term data integrity.
If you aren't aware that it's an LEO urging you on, I don't see why you should be able to argue impropriety. You made the decision as if it were real and would have real consequences.
Case in point, there is an employee in my office who, after attaining a 4-year CS degree, was unaware that "git" wasn't "GitHub". GitHub is so aggressively pushed on new programmers that they don't even need to know that git exists, much less how it works. Actions that don't have a large colorful button may as well be impossible for someone so thoroughly dependent on tools-in-the-middle.
For decades (probably centuries!), the phrase "don't take no for an answer" has always been a common sales technique. If the customer says they aren't interested, you don't necessarily just walk away from the sale. You can continue to try. Why wouldn't they have used that extraordinarily common phrase? The paragraph under the header only ever describes the same concept.
Who thought it was appropriate to negate the "no means no" phrasing that has almost exclusively referred to sexual consent for all recent memory?
Knowingly pushing type 2 patients towards insulin when cheaper, better options for them might exist can 100% be blamed on the manufacturers; however, the oft-maligned list price increases have a lot to do with the mostly-secret negotiations between manufacturers, PBMs, and health plans (many of which share ownership with the PBMs). A big effect of those negotiations helps to artificially increase the amount of dollars spent on drugs (on paper) while also artificially decreasing the actual dollars spent, making it easier for health plans to hit the ACA 80/20 rule with elevated premiums.
All of this to say...none of these price negotiations or middlemen entities (I'm counting health plans as middlemen between patients and their drugs...) should be targeted by the FDA, as that's not their responsibility. The FDA should be focused on the clinical side only as much as possible. Much to my chagrin, some amount of credit for PBMs and drug rebates being part of the modern conversation goes to the Trump administration.
I don't think you realize you're arguing against all laws here?
Criminals don't behave themselves, so we make laws and punish them. Law enforcement doesn't behave itself, so we should make laws and punish them.
[1] https://github.com/jagapher/palserver-container/blob/main/Do...
> To illustrate this example, he spoke of how a parent may share their login with their child. And when that child grows up, they will usually subscribe to Netflix, too.
> “As kids move on in their life, they like to have control of their life, and as they have an income, we see them separately subscribe,” Hastings told reporters at CES. “It really hasn’t been a problem.”
> While Hastings didn’t directly address how he feels about non-family members sharing their credentials – such as in the case where friends or roommates may split an account
From [1], at least, it doesn't appear that he ever intended password-sharing among multiple households to be a thing?
Even in [0] (which I would consider a poor reference since it's about the crackdown and therefore starts out trying to prove a point...), I think there is a fairly reasonable interpretation of "Love is sharing a password" that doesn't include 3+ households sharing an account.
This is the nature of "I have a viewpoint that must be true at all costs." It's why, in the face of extreme evidence to the contrary, they'll go full conspiracy theorist before they'll entertain the idea that their original, unfounded beliefs might be incorrect.
The same goes for any argument that claims that COVID deaths were simply mis-classified to take advantage of special hospital reimbursements, and that people were really just dying of the standard flu. It takes almost no effort to show that the ALL-CAUSE risk of dying in America was excessively high during the pandemic years, which turns their argument from "they're just reclassifying flu deaths" into "there's a global conspiracy to submit extra death certificates for fictional people." [1][2][3][4]
[1] Age-adjusted mortality up to 2018 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/mortality-trends...)
[2] Age-adjusted mortality for 2019 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf)
[3] Age-adjusted mortality for 2020-2021 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db456.pdf)
[4] Provisional age-adjusted mortality for 2022 (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a3.htm)
And for easy consumption of that data: https://imgur.com/a/zFYICrt