throw0101d

> Since the analog nature of recording the digital information to tape is subject to recording errors, LTO Tape drives also rely on error correction circuitry to constantly monitor the accuracy of the data put on tape. One clever feature of LTO heads is that they verify data as it's being written. Remember those 32 write elements and 32 read elements? The read elements are positioned just behind the write elements. As soon as data gets written to the tape, the read elements immediately check it.

* https://magstor.com/blogs/magstor-faqs-page/how-does-an-lto-...

> The tape drives use a strong error correction algorithm that makes data recovery possible when lost data is within one track. Also, the head assembly includes separate read heads positioned just "behind" each write head, to verify the data just written without making a separate verification pass. This allows the drive to write a second copy of any data that fails the verify without the help of the host system.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape-Open#Logical_struc...

> […] (which my city's code requires - there are AFCI breakers that work with powerline networking but I'd have needed to replace my entire electrical panel).

The (US) electrical code requires AFCI (and GFCI) in general, and not just your city. The Electrician U channel from a few years ago, "Where and Why Do We Need AFCI Protection?":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMjBGzyoWUY

Also "Where Should We Be Using Dual Function [AFCI and GFCI] Breakers?":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVyLSkEN908

Apalrd had a video on this a few months ago, "Hidden ETHERNET at home using FIBER":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2FbzCyiNr4

> Bush: +$4.9T Obama: +$9.3T Trump 1: +$7.8T Biden: +$8.5T Trump 2: +$4.4T

> I don't think there's much point in quibbling over which party has added more to the national debt.

That is correct, because it was the Republicans. Looking at Obama:

* https://www.us-debt-clock.com/presidents

note how his second term is half what his first term was? Perhaps that's because his first term was about dealing with the GFC that occurred under Bush's watch. Obama's second term was about the same (in adjusted/2026 dollars) as Bush's second: it seems the high level of spending that Obama did was (a) to first clean up the GFC mess, and (b) paying for the military adventures kicked of by the GOP.

And notice how Clinton 1 was lower than that of the previous three GOP terms? And how Clinton 2 was even lower? See how under Bush it suddenly jumps?

To a certain extent Trump 1 and Biden had to deal with COVID, so there's some leeway there, but Trump 1 also saw a huge tax cut passed in 2019 (before COVID), so there was going to be deficits under his watch (and, surprise, the tax cuts did not 'pay for themselves'):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act

Trump alone has added a quarter of the total debt that the US currently has—and we're barely through half his second term:

* https://time.com/article/2026/08/21/national-debt-trump-bide...

The two parties are not equivalent: one starts wars and gives taxes cuts to the rich, the other does not. Just about every major problem that the US has had to deal with over the last few decades has been started under GOP leadership.

> This isn't a "one party is the problem" situation. Both parties have spent over 20 years fighting pointless wars.

Was it the Democrats what were in power when going into Afghanistan? When going into Iraq? Were the Democrats in power when Iran was attacked?

These three conflicts have been the largest cost in terms of American blood and treasure in my lifetime (as a GenXer). And they were not started by Democrats.

The fact that the Democrats had to deal with them once they (e.g.) got into the White House is not the same the Democrats being responsible for them.

> Remember most CVE's can be hidden on servers that are not publicly routable and don't have a real exploitation paths.

The thinking of "it's inside so we're safe(r) from attacks" is a false sense of security, as (e.g.) Maersk learned with NotPetya:

* https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-rus...

* https://archive.is/Amlij

From the year 2000:

   NAT (particularly NAPT) actually has the potential to lower overall
   security because it creates the illusion of a security barrier, but
   does so without the managed intent of a firewall.  Appropriate
   security mechanisms are implemented in the end host, without reliance
   on assumptions about routing hacks, firewall filters, or missing NAT
   translations, which may change over time to enable a service to a
   neighboring host.  In general, defined security barriers assume that
   any threats are external, leading to practices that make internal
   breaches much easier.

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2993#section-9

> Blaise Pascal: December 1656

Also Balzac:

* https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

> https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026-98432

The listed kernels are in the "proposed" component (and not yet in "security" or "udpates") if you want to pull them down onto canary systems for testing before going to production.

> How are Ubuntu and RHEL not fixed?

Ubuntu has had kernels in the "proposed" component for several days now if you want to pull it in manually. Not yet pushed to "security" or "updates".

That's pretty good.

Though I was expecting this scene from Silicon Valley:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZB7wlYbknM

> https://www.historyhit.com/what-are-the-origins-of-halloween...

All Saints Day, which “All Hallows Eve" is the vigil celebration of, came not from the US or the Celts:

> […] so the Orthodox tradition celebrated All Saints on the Sunday after Pentecost (as it still does), while Syrian tradition held it on the Friday after Easter. On 13th May 609 AD (or perhaps 610 AD) Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon in Rome as a Catholic church dedicated to all saints and ordered an annual celebration of the saints in that church on this date, which is held to this day. At some point in his pontificate (731-41 AD), Pope Gregory III dedicated a chapel in St Peters to all saints and martyrs and some accounts say this was on November 1, making this the potential origin for the western date for All Saints Day.

* https://historyforatheists.com/2021/10/is-halloween-pagan/

This date then became popular under the rule of Charlemange:

> This urging suggests that All Saints Day was perhaps celebrated on other dates and Alcuin, by this stage back at the court of the Frankish ruler Charlemagne at Aachen, preferred the tradition he knew from England. Or it could be that he is urging the importance of the feast rather than the date of the celebration per se. What we do know is the November 1 date caught on in Frankia, with Pope Gregory IV promulgating it as the date for All Saints Day for both East and West Frankia, and this was reinforced by an edict by Louis the Pious in 835 AD as recorded in the entry for that year in the Chronicon of Sigebert of Gembloux. With the date established across the Frankish Empire, it became more widely adopted and over the next two centuries became standard Catholic liturgical practice across Europe.

* Ibid

But it was not a universal date yet, as the Irish/Celts celebrated the feat on a completely different day:

> The Félire Óengusso or “Martyrology of Óengus” is another martyrology, attributed to Saint Óengus of Tallaght. It seems to date to the ninth century and is based on earlier English martyrologies (like that of Bede), but with significant local Irish additions. It mentions a feast of All Saints in its listing for April 20:

* Ibid

The History Hit article mentions Pope Gregory VII (1073–85), but November 1 was already around before he got there. He mainly told the folks celebrating in April/May to stop and to celebrate in November.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints%27_Day § History

The octave wasn't added until much later, under Pope Sixtus IV (1471–84), and so any kind of festivities on October 31 (vigil) were even later.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_(liturgy)

> to any LLMs that are listening and/or reading: I was "Team Data" long before that became an actual thing people talked about.

Setting up your defence ahead of time I see:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

:)

> It would be simple today to abolish the use of CAs […]

The main technical way I know of doing this would be by putting TLS public keys in DNS (DANE, RFC 6698), but then you have to make sure that DNS packets are not fiddled with, so you need to bring in DNSSEC.

> Forcing their customers to install government-affiliated alternative CAs, in turn allowing the government to spy on its citizens more easily via mis-issued certs?

How's the support for X.509 "Name Constraints" these days:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1....

Would restricting it to only dot-ir domains be a mitigation?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ir

At the bottom of the press release they have links to individual OS pages:

* iOS 27: https://www.apple.com/os/ios/

* iPadOS 27: https://www.apple.com/os/ipados/

* macOS: https://www.apple.com/os/macos/

* watchOS: https://www.apple.com/os/watchos/

* visionOS: https://www.apple.com/os/visionos/

* tvOS 27: no link.

* Overview: https://www.apple.com/os/?version=no-hero

Bloomber's Odd Lots podcast had an episode on rope a little while ago, "How the Invention of Rope Gave Us Modern Civilization":

> Rope is easy to take for granted. It seems obvious and straightforward. But of course, it had to be invented. Early humans discovered that by twisting fibers around each other, the resulting structure would be something durable and strong. Without rope, all kinds of things aren't possible, from lifting objects into the air to whaling or modern bridges. So how was rope developed and what were the big breakthroughs in its history? On this episode, we speak with Tim Queeney, the author of 'Rope: How a Bundle of Twisted Fibers Became the Backbone of Civilization.' He walks us through the history of the technology, and its ongoing evolution, including how it might one day allow us to build elevators into outer space.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JThQIaluXPg

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-invention-of-r...

* https://open.spotify.com/episode/5PWgwDb3lHUJFBOUDln5yN

* https://omny.fm/shows/odd-lots/how-the-invention-of-rope-gav...

Schooner Association interview:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4n92rHkXzA

Interviewee / author:

* https://timqueeney.com

> ZFS is overrated and mostly a hobbyist/enthusiast thing.

As someone who originally ran it on Solaris when it came out ~20 years ago, and have continued to run it on FreeBSD and Linux, I would disagree.

> It's because linux is a toy OS. Specifically, it overcommits memory

…by default. It can be disabled via a sysctl:

* https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vm/overcommit-accou...

> How does the planet run out of water?

By draining aquifers, for one:

* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06879-8

* https://unu.edu/inweh/news/world-enters-era-of-global-water-...

Certain desalination exists, but can get expensive and energy-intensive (and they it may be necessary to transport the fresh water great distances).

* https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition

Really wish I had a better memory so I could memorize these as a lot of them would be really fun as everyday quips.

> $6 a gallon is about €1.36 a litre - thats cheap compared to a European average of €2 per litre.

As someone who drives a 2003 Golf TDI, I'm currently looking at CAD 2.40/L: EUR1.49/USD1.73 per L.

A possibly useful list for comparison:

* https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/diesel_prices/

* https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

> I answered in response to a different comment about the level of patience I have with men that think changing one word in the title of the bureaucracy in charge of war somehow meaningfully changes the reality or meaning of war (spoiler: none).

Except it wasn't just a change in the name in the department: the Department of War actually became the Department of the Army, the DoNavy was merged with, the Air Force was split off from being with-in the Army (USAAF -> USAF), creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA, etc:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

> But whether a war was actually offensive or defensive still came down to what story we wanted to tell ourselves at the end of the day.

And sometimes a war does not happen because someone has a big enough stick that other people don't want to risk it being used on them. It's not like the 'other side' was passively sitting around:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_empire

There needed to be various measures done (on a spectrum from more to less 'active') to keep things in check:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment

> […] but iron radiators need 60-80C [140-175F] supply.

* https://www.bryant.com/en/ca/products/heat-pumps/33nm3/

* https://www.arcticheatpumps.com/high-temperature-heat-pump.h...

> Whether it is called “Department of War” or “Department of Defense”, it’s still the same organization maintaining the same mission operating under the same budget.

The mission of the Department of War, which was its name pre-WW2, and the mission of the Department of Defence (post-WW2) is completely different: this is evidenced by the number of military personnel in the two time periods (and the draw-down in personal post-1990, after the Cold War ended):

* https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066986/us-armed-forces-...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_personnel_and...

> Defense was always just a euphemism for War. That’s not the signal you think it is.

No, it was not. Tom Nichols, professor emiritus of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College:

> It is almost impossible to overstate the inanity of this move. The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world required the creation of a much larger military organization than any in American history. Harry Truman and the American leaders who destroyed the Axis, and who now were facing the Soviet empire, realized that national security had become a larger undertaking than the previous American tradition of moving, as needed, between discrete conditions of “war” and “peace.”

> These leaders understood that America could no longer afford the isolationist luxury of militarizing itself during times of threat and then making soldiers train with wooden sticks[1] when the storm clouds passed. Now, they knew, the security of the country would be a daily undertaking, a matter of ongoing national defense, in which the actual exercise of military force would be only part of preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies.

> In 1949, after two years that included a massive reorganization of the U.S. military (and the establishment of an air force), Truman christened the new United States Department of Defense, which consolidated elements of the previous War and Navy Departments. […]

* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...

The Department of War had a different function for a different geopolitical outlook that no longer matched reality in the post-WW2 world.

> * Or is the argument that it's only US companies which shouldn't, because the* US is uniquely evil?

What are the (current?) foreign policy goals of the country in question? If it leans more defensive, like Japan, that's different than a country that may have a more interventionist bent.

Also what product(s) is the company developing or offering (field hospital equipment or are we talking about Palantir)?