LTO tape (specifically that which is rated for 15-30 years of archival storage) with the drive. The tape is usually rated for a couple hundred full passes, which should more than meet your needs if you're writing once and sticking them somewhere safe.
SSDs don't have this archival longevity yet, and hard drives are better when powered up and the data is always hot for scrubbing and migrating when indicators of drive failure present.
SSD's are not as bad as they used to be, but still not rated for long term unpowered storage. HDD would be better for that.
But HDD isn't your only other option. How important is the data, How often will you need to access it, and will you need to rewrite to the storage medium? You might want to consider Blu Ray. Or both, stored in different locations. Also look into LTO tape drives. LTO 6 drives should be cheaper than 7/8 (though still not cheap) and have a capacity around 6TB.
>Also look into LTO tape drives. LTO 6 drives should be cheaper than 7/8 (though still not cheap) and have a capacity around 6TB.
AFAIK a post on /r/datahoarders says that the breakeven point for tapes vs shucked hard drives from a pure storage perspective is around 50TB. Given the hassle associated with dealing with tapes, it's probably only really worth it if you have 100+TB of data to store.
What do you think the availability of LTO 6 drives will be in 10 years? The major benefit of SATA, and even Bluray, is the interface and drive will likely still exist in 10 years.
I'm still able to interface with an LTO 1 tape drive. It's all SCSI or SAS. Secondary markets like Ebay have made this surprisingly affordable (used drive, unopened older media).
LTO is nice in that they mandate backwards compatibility by two revisions, which come out once every 3 years or so. So that gives you time to roll forward to new media onto a new drive without breaking the bank, and giving time for the secondary market to settle.
Adding: This was a deliberate decision by the LTO Consortium; they wanted users to perceive LTO as the safest option for data retention standards.
LTO 6 is like 10 years old, so the availability in 10 years will probably be limited. That being said, LTO 7 drives are able to read LTO 6 so that might increase your chances.
I can vouch for the 50TB figure, it’s around there.
The amount of hassle depends on your workflow. If you create a backup every day and then bring the media off-site, tape is easier. Easy enough to put a tape in your drive, make the backup, and eject. Tape is not sensitive to shock and you can just chuck the tapes in your care or shove them in your backpack.
Depends on your archival needs. Consensus seems to be that tapes have a longer unpowered shelf life. In terms of speed it really is cold storage though. You can't just bring the tape over to a user's system and copy a file. And seek times for retrieval of arbitrary files are very slow compared to HDD.
If you really need it to last and re-writability isn't an issue, M Disc claims 1,000 years.
Why not b2 or glacier since you're encrypting anyway? If you don't have that much data then maybe M-DISC?
Personally I think safe is.. unnecessary. What is it protecting you from when your data is encrypted? If you put it in a safe then you probably care enough about the data not to have it in a single location no matter how secure it seemingly is.
Ignoring for a moment how insecure most cheap locks are (including locks on safes), little safes are rarely effective vs a prybar + carrying them away to be cut into at the attacker's leisure. Larger safes have some of the same issues w.r.t. cutting, but you can make it less convenient for an adversary to do it (and make them spend more time where they might be caught).
The $50 safes are not fire-rated... and hardly break-in rated.
For fire-safety you need something big, and mostly heavy, which will be costly (shipping/moving it alone)
Break-ins are not in my threat model for a document safe. If they were, I'd get a deposit box at a bank. I just want some of my personal mementos and documents to survive a fire.
AFAIK, M Disc really only matters for DVDs due to their organic materials. (Non-LTH) BDs on the other hand have inorganic materials and last pretty well.
I think there was a French study that compared DVDs, M Discs and BDs and the HTL BDs fared very well. Can't find the document though.
I would imagine previous generation tape drives (used) can be economical. Just need to find a reliable place that handles testing / refurbishing (cleaning, alignment, belts, etc) used drives. Also the other bit item is needing the appropriate controller and cabling.
Tape drives are open about both their condition and the condition of tapes. It’s all there in the scsi log pages, more detailed than SMART on hard drives.
Mechanically and electrically, everything is rated to last several times longer than the head
In other words, you just need to buy two used drives (one as spare) and verify they can write a full tape and their head hours and other error counters are sane. There is no reasonable need to refurbish a tape drive other than a head replacement, which is easy to do at home but so expensive (for older generations) that you might as well buy a new drive. All the testing you could hope for is done in POST and by LTT/equivalent (writing a tape and reading logs is good enough)
1. Backup to external SSD or NAS. This is the backup you will rely on if your PC loses all data. It will be fast to replicate to.
2. Mirror the external backup to a second external SSD. And sync it every week or month. Sync more often if your data is changing a lot.
3. The third layer is an external HDD mirror for the long term off-site backups. HDD are cheaper and more suited for being switched off long term.
4. If you can afford the expense of a forth step, every year buy another external HDD and put the previous one aside as an archive to be brought into service if the current one fails to boot.
I recommend separating your data into some short of hierarchy and choose what needs to be backed up to what level. So if you have some software ISOs that you could repurchase/redownload, then have a separate drive for junk like that and don't have it go all the way through the backup steps listed above.
Figure out what you really need and print it on good paper. Put that in a safe place, away from direct light and dampness.
Save the rest on two of Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, some other cloud storage, a backup service or copy to a computer in your home. Make your selection based on things that you will "touch" in some way at least every 12-24 months. Everything else will fail in a few years.
Don’t save crap you don’t need. Don't futz around with optical media, tape or other nonsense. Don't buy safes or safe deposit boxes unless that's going to be part of your routine in some way.
I tend to agree with this although it can be hard to determine what you won't want/need in advance and it probably takes at least some effort to winnow things down.
That said, I'm in the middle of going through my photos right now and deleting a bunch of stuff. (Which is a big job.) It's not so much for the storage space as I'll "only" be deleting a few hundred GB. But it's a lot easier to look for stuff and manage it when you don't have reams of near-identical or just lousy pics. One of my takeaways from this exercise is that I should really be better at pruning when I ingest a new batch.
I think that effort is worth it. As it stands, we've all become digital hoarders as the up-front cost to accumulate stuff like photos and documents goes to zero. The problem is you're dumping LOTS of cost into the future.
Photos are a big thing for me.
Initially, I used applications (Picasa and later iPhoto) to tag photos with metadata to indicate importance, etc. Applications tend to have zero respect for to commitment to preserving metadata. So by the time my kids are going to college, my family is going to have 200,000+ photos alone. What's the point? Am I getting pleasure (or to borrow from the Netflix organizational guru "Does it bring joy?") from this data?
Personally, my new strategy, having been burned by the tools is a pyramid:
1. Print and Frame/preserve important or significant pictures (Say 20-30/year)
2. Curate others that we care about. (Say 500/year or 5-8%)
3. Purge stuff of no value. (Say 2500/year or ~25%)
Based on my "performance" today, if I keep at it, I'll be able to reduce the rate of growth.
How long is 'a few years'? Controlled environments shouldn't be necessary for unplugged drives, just keep them at or slightly below room temperature.
I've had three external hard drives for 7 years, and none have stopped working. I have one, and keep two somewhere else (office, family). I connect one for a few hours every week/month to update, then leave alone until needed, or rotated with one elsewhere.
A few years isn't archival quality. An HDD will last longer and is cheaper, and speed is much less of an issue for a drive that will be written to and then chucked in a safe.
Yes, HDD's should probably be considered medium-term storage. Tapes seem a little more robust, but it seems like M Disc, estimated around 1,000 years, take the crown. Unfortunately 100GB is the limit, so very large files will be difficult.
I don't really understand the downvotes and reactions of the other commenters to the gp's post. There's a whole bunch of studies showing there's less incentive to find cures opposed to ongoing treatments under for profit health systems.
On a website where products as a service are discussed regularly i'm confused as to how the parallels between that and profit driven 'healthcare as a service' are ignored or looked at with hostility.
Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for adding to an offtopic, flamewar inspiring subthread. I hoped providing some sources for the GP's comment might spur on some more productive discussion and i genuinely thought the other commenter was asking in good faith about sources for discussion. I was also genuinely curious as to the harsh reaction
I do see now the flamewar aspect to it and didn't really stop to consider the initial topic of the article when I responded. I was just trying to focus on the actual topic of the commenter's statement and kinda got lost in searching up articles. I was hoping to maybe bring some data and information into the discussion that might steer it in a more productive direction.
It is an issue that could productively be discussed. It seems it didn't end up being the case though and probably wasn't the most appropriate comment thread to do so on.
Thanks—I appreciate that! We all underestimate how provocative our posts will end up being. I struggle with this daily.
I think it's because in our mind, the comment is blended together with the intention behind the comment, which is usually benign. We take our intent for granted and assume it will come across, but of course the people who read it have no direct access to that intent, and often it doesn't come across.
> Is the flamewar tangent part of this the comment on capitalism or "Capitalized medicine"? Doesn't really seem flamie to me but obviously others disagree.
The problem is the generic ideological tangent. You can perhaps (maybe!) imagine a substantive article and thread on the economics of cures vs. treatments. But that would require different initial conditions—primarily an interesting, informative article that brought lots of relevant information. Relevant information is flame retardant.
The situation is different when the topic is "FDA approves first monthly injectable to treat HIV infection" and the comment is swerving generically into "capitalized medicine". Generic tangents, especially when the impetus is snarky or unsubstantive, make threads reliable less interesting, and generic ideological tangents almost always turn into flamewars. The reason is that there's very little specific information to discuss—that's the meaning of "generic".
Off-topic tangents can be great when they're unpredictable and curious, but generic tangents are the opposite of that. They're more like getting sucked into the gravitational field of a much larger body, if not a black hole, that pulls all nearby topics toward itself and renders them all the same. Avoiding repetition is the biggest problem that a forum like HN—dedicated to curiosity—actually has, so it's a big deal: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
I hope this helps explain things a bit. There are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... also, but you'll unfortunately—and ironically—have to wade through some generic repetition to find the interesting bits.
If you mean in this case, that may be, but it's certainly not true in the general case.
Moderation comments have multiple functions. If it were just about this specific case it wouldn't be worth spending so much time on it, but they're also opportunities to explain the principles of this site to readers who might not have encountered those principles yet.
For those who do already know this stuff, it's true that such comments are tedious. I'm sorry about that. If it helps at all, they're even more tedious to write than they are to read.
A comment that spawns a lengthy subthread of meta trying to parse out what the commenter actually meant, why precisely they are being downvoted, etc, is bad. As is the subthread of meta.
I am sure there is some evidence on both sides, but at the end of the day, people get into medicine and medical research to heal people, not keep them sick. The USA does not have the only medical system in the world and many countries run their systems with the goal of controlling costs, not increasing them. I don't think this kind of pessimistic conspiracy thinking adds to the conversation.
If there's more money to be made from keeping people sick than outright curing them, that logically is a disincentive from curing them.
It's not conspiracy thinking to look at the incentive structures within systems to predict possible negative outcomes.
Of course, there's a moral incentive to not keep people sick, but history shows that we can not rely on people acting morally. The pessimism is justified.
If we expect companies to provide cures over treatments, we at least must allow them to profit as much or more from a cure as they would from a treatment.
> we at least must allow them to profit as much or more from a cure as they would from a treatment
I think that’s where you go wrong. There are huge profit incentives for a cure. If a biotech company comes up with a cure they will instantly have the business of every afflicted person on the planet. The market for that and price they can charge will be way larger than a slightly different treatment.
Beyond that, there are labs all over the world funded by public dollars to research avenues to a cure, it’s just way more complicated than effective treatment.
There are indeed huge profit incentives for a cure. There are even larger profits to be had from a monthly treatment that the patient has to take for the rest of their lives.
Are you saying people that aren’t taking a monthly biologic injection for example will start coming out of the woodwork for a cure when normally they wouldn’t seek treatment for their malady?
You speak as if there is just one entity making these things. There isn’t, there are hundreds of labs all over the world working on this. If one of them comes out with a treatment alternative like this it may gain some traction but if they came out with a cure they would dominate the global market
> It's not conspiracy thinking to look at the incentive structures within systems to predict possible negative outcomes
It is when one mischaracterizes the system.
Medical research is not an oligopoly. It is oligopolistic within some domains, but as we've seen with the Covid vaccine, there are at least four nation-state domains (e.g. Russia, China, India and "the West") operating competitively, and within those domains, there are varying degrees of competitiveness (e.g. Pfizer vs. Moderna vs. AstraZeneca).
If you have a cure to something everyone else can only treat, you'll make a money selling the cure and taking your competitors' market share. Because if you don't, they will. It's a classic cartel / prisoner's dilemma problem with the added explosive of a multi-decade patent-protected monopoly for the first mover.
I'm not sure every claim is worthy of debate. Setting aside all the private investment and philanthropy dollars going towards a cure, governments spend billions annually on HIV research.
Yes, they spend billions on developing the exact types of treatments that this article is about. Their business model depends on maximizing revenue so any treatment cannot cure the patient and it cannot kill the patient. Sad, but true.
> I'm curious what evidence there is on either side of this claim
Looking at the list of the most deadly non-tropical infectious diseases [1], most can be vaccinated against and/or cured. The standouts remain lower respiratory infections, e.g. influenza, and HIV/AIDS.
When confronted with a novel coronavirus, it took a few months for the world's medical systems to devise various treatments and a vaccine. Neither of those are recurring revenue streams.
Most damning to this conspiracy theory is the recent Hep C cure. That's a real disease. It was profitable to treat. But it's more profitable to cure. Those incentives remain elsewhere. A cure for HIV is worth billions.
Dealing with mortality and sickness is difficult. It's more comforting to some to imagine an evil cabal holding back medicine, and I don't need to take that from them. But if you're entertaining these thoughts as anything more than a coping mechanism, the last half century--or even decade--of progress in curing, not treating, curing a variety of medical issues has been under-reported (lots of niche illnesses) and breathtaking.
The Hep C cure wasn't all that profitable, from what I understand. On paper it was a clear win-win - the cure would save the various healthcare services lots of money compared with treatment, whilst still raking in boatloads of money. The trouble is that healthcare services everywhere balked at buying it regardless of their structure and despite the fact that not doing so would cost them money in the long term, and even at those rejected prices it wouldn't have been nearly as profitable as a long-term ongoing treatment because it eliminates its own customer base.
I came here to post about the Hep C cure. You did a great job.
Only thing I would embellish on is that, much like software - when something is wrong its easier to treat the symptoms than to fix the problem a lot of the times. So it's really no wonder alot of treatments are amelioration rather than cures.
I recently did a major refactor at work to fix database and caching problems in our backend. It took months but only yielded 50% scaling improvements. Past teams just kept stacking shit and adding hardware and we can all understand why.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Well not sure if it is "evidence", but in terms of marginal preventing people in the US from getting HIV, lowering the cost of Truvada from $2,000 out of pocket and publicizing it would likely have a much larger impact than this once a month shot.
The claim logically holds together. There is even evidence on its side.
But one reason for the downvotes may be that it might be too narrow-minded. For one thing, it completely neglects to consider the relative difficulty of treating symptoms versus being fully curative. Secondly, it half undermines itself by lumping vaccines into the same bucket as symptomatic treatment. Clearly the economic incentives for vaccine, versus symptom management, versus cure depends on the disease being treated.
Finally, while it carefully uses the word "incentive" instead of talking in black and whites, it doesn't explain why "big pharma" makes cures at all. A lot of the the supporting material for "pharma makes more money on symptom treatment" references Gilead's experience with Hep C. But the economics of how that drug would have worked was clear as day before Gilead spent resources of it. So why would Gilead have gone to market with a cure at all?
The claim doesn't logically hold together: it assumes a monopoly in medicine. It might not be profitable for the company with a treatment regimen to develop a cure. But for the company without the treatment regiment to develop a cure and take away all of a competitor's business and capture a significant part of it as their own? That's extremely profitable. You can charge far more for a cure than for a regular preventative treatment (per dose) so margins are far higher even if volume over time is lower. Suffice it to say cures are sufficiently profitable to enough of the actors in the system that they are worth exploring. And there is evidence of cures being researched successfully as referenced in the comment above. Also, I don't think all pharma companies are perfectly 'rational' actors in this sense. They are composed of people who got into medicine with the interest to help people, and those people know both cures and vaccines help more than just symptom mitigation. The motivation of the actors in the system to do good leads to even more research of cures and vaccines than the non-zero amount that is sufficiently incentivized (even if cures are less profitable than symptom mitigations).
I’m not going to pretent to under the US politician system, but isn’t kinda weird that the employees of a single company almost exclusively vote the same way?
In any country where voting preferences are strongly correlated with education (like the US, where it's particularly strong, but this effect exists in most places to some extent) you'd expect this sort of thing when looking at a company that generally mostly hired highly educated people.
_Age_ is likely also a factor. Google's employee base would be younger than many companies, but in general employees of most companies would be likely to vote more for the left in the US than the general population, because people above working age are more likely to vote for the right.
The only care about diversity as a tool to further their own agenda. Countless examples of big tech attacking or ousting diverse people who voiced their own opinion that was contra to the narrative.
I dont know why you think the overall donation rates of an entire company of employees is the same thing as the voting rates of individual employees. The article notes that Eric Schmidt is one of the largest donors that are included. The article makes no claims as to the relation to amount donated per employee who even bothered to donate.
Exit polls for the 2020 election show that there was an almost 50/50 split between Biden and Trump across multiple ascending education levels, the only exceptions are those with a postgraduate education, who voted 62/37 for Biden/Trump.
The biggest (related) issue I run into running rclone from home is hitting the request speed limit on Digital Ocean Spaces. I frequently get the "Slow down!" error when backing up a bunch of small (<1mb) files.
Disinformation experts are increasingly concerned with misuse of a private platform called Airvibe, known to be used for many extremist activities including the 9/11 attacks and the Columbine killings. “Airvibe lets domestic terrorists communicate without any moderation whatsoever, completely out of the reach of standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed trust and safety committees” said Vox news correspondent Casey Newton.
However, new tools for combatting abuse on the Airvibe network are being researched, including implantable vocal modulators and persistent environmental smart home microphones. For parents concerned about what their kids are hearing on Airvibe, CBS News recommends substituting Airvibe time with safe platforms monitored for misinformation like Facebook or Youtube.
> So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming.
Next, I seriously expect Amazon and Google at some point to turn on the microphones on all Echo and Home devices and make sure that nobody ever says anything outrageous in their private homes. Failing that, report them to the authorities, or better, doxx them with social media mobs.
But the current president did author the original patriot act (the bill it was based on), so there is hope that terrorism can be stopped from spreading on these platforms.
>There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny.
I think this is what the Republicans would have you believe, but I think the left extremists are more about simply pursuing people who they believe as toxic to wherever they retreat.
Who says that? People, myself included, don't want specific harmful for society groups to be allowed to speak free, not that nobody's allowed to say anything.
Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind.
In fact, I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad.
That being said, I think the frameworks used to prevent that at the moment have a lot of potential for abuse, especially from private companies. And it's something that should be improved upon, and normal people should have privacy as much as possible.
Not everything's a programming language where you need to define exact thresholds for something to be either `True` or `False`. I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we?
And as such it doesn't make sense to write down a specific definition like "groups that goals are to harm others" or similar, even though that would cover pretty much everything. Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way. Or some sort of a body like WHO where countries can take part in. It's a complex topic, that I don't have a perfect solution for.
Any part of nazi ideology should be forbidden in any way, shape, or form.
As to how to recognize it, I think it's easy for humans to do so. And how do we train computers to recognize it? Well, if we can teach it to recognize cars, bikes, etc from photos I'm sure extremist ideology shouldn't be impossible to achieve with some helping hands from people.
And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers, just like I don't have an answer on how to teach computers to recognize X in photos flawlessly, but I think this is something we should start working on.
> I think [recognizing nazi ideology is] easy for humans to do so.
It isn't, not even when you are one of those who thinks "anyone who disagrees with me must be a nazi"—meaning that in theory you could just train a model with things you like and things you don't like and label the second group with "nazism"—because your opinions can and do shift often too and so the model would become outdated by the month, if not by the day.
> And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers
And yet you speak with such certainty, as if you did. On that note, in your first comment you proclaimed that you were willing to sacrifice your privacy, and yet you used an anonymous account to make that declaration.
It's perfectly fine to wish for something without having all the answers - I don't think I should be attacked for that.
People should be allowed to say that they wish to improve something, even if they don't have the exact scientifically proven step by step way to actually implement it. We are allowed to say that wars should end, that people shouldn't die of hunger, and so on - even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public, it refers to actually being able to enforce certain rules. If I were to do something that's illegal on HN the authorities would have no problem finding me.
I made no attack in my comment and I don't appreciate the insinuation.
> People should be allowed to say
Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anything. As I understood it, you were arguing otherwise.
> We are allowed to say [...] even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And other people are similarly allowed to argue with you on anything you might say if they so choose. That's the point of a free exchange of ideas, I think.
> And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public
But... Something is either public or it's private....
Anyhow, not only you suggested that I was attacking you for no reason, but you also brought up "wars" and "hunger" and I don't particularly understand why, and this now seems like an attempt at equivocation. Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting, but I don't feel like you are trying to argue in good faith.
What is a nazi? I might say it's someone who was a member of the Nazi party in Germany during the early 20th century.
You might say it's "groups that goals are to harm others"
Someone else might say it's anyone who doesn't support progressive policies because to do otherwise would cause harm to people, many of which are "marginalized" and "under-represented".
Let's see if we can agree on what a nazi is before we start figuring out what people are allowed to say and think in private.
>Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way.
Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind.
That's why the left constantly describe anyone who isn't on the left as Nazis, even though they clearly aren't. Free speech requires absolutism - the moment you make an exception of the form, "well ... but not for them" suddenly the term is redefined and huge swathes of people are being dumped in that bucket regardless of reason or evidence.
I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad.
The people who talk about racism the most are by far the most racist people in society. They manage to be racist whilst claiming to hate racism by redefining it to not be about race, but perceived "power" where "power" is entirely subjective. Hence they can hate on white people whilst claiming to be fighting racism.
Again, the lesson is simple. All free speech must be protected to the absolute end. The moment you make an exception, leftists will en-masse attempt to redefine the word used to delimit the exception to encompass anyone who isn't on their side.
The right isn't above this sort of behaviour either, see the abuse of "terrorist" to mean random people in Afghanistan in the first years of the millenium. But I haven't seen much of that lately. As of 2021 this behaviour is definitely more common on the other side of the hall.
Just so I'm clear, because English isn't my first language, saying that people shouldn't be allowed to advocate for complete extermination of complete groups of people based on their skin color or similar, somehow makes me a racist?
Besides, the whole "free speech must be protected to the absolute end" is such a stupid thing to insist on. Here in Germany that's not the most sacred thing, do you know what the article 1 of the german basic law is? "Human dignity shall be inviolable." - and guess what, we're not some dystopian racist hellhole.
Literally nobody in the modern world is advocating for the "complete extermination of complete groups of people based on skin colour" with the possible exception of China in Xinjiang (although I guess that's based on religion rather than race). If they were, you would be right to identify them and call them racist.
The way these terms are actually used in 2021 has nothing to do with the classical definitions. Rather, Twitter warriors describe anyone who votes for Trump as a racist Nazi. The terms have become unmoored from their original definitions. And as a German I am sure you're aware that this problem of redefinition happens there too.
Here in Germany that's not the most sacred thing, do you know what the article 1 of the german basic law is? "Human dignity shall be inviolable."
German law is crap then. That statement is vacuous, means nothing and can be interpreted in whatever way the government wishes to whatever end the government wants. The US First Amendment is vastly superior and I'm not even American: it is crisp, fairly specific and applies to a very small group of people (Congress).
As for not a dystopian racist hellhole, no, Germany isn't. Neither is the USA, so using Germany to try and make a point about free speech doesn't seem very relevant. China is such a place, if the reports of concentration camps for Muslims in the west are true, and they also have no free speech. So the correlation between free speech and being non racist seems pretty good.
Ok. I'm not sure that "speaking free" is a useful concept. I think it's more useful to discuss controls on public vs private speech.
I believe that two consenting "nazis" should be able to speak privately on e2e platforms, mainly because this is the same mechanism that will let consenting marxists, christians, muslims, satanists, pro-life advocates, pro choice advocates... escape mainstream outrage.
I realise this is a security risk, in the same way that not having microphones everywhere in public spaces is a security risk.
Child exploitation and plotting terrorist acts are the "biggest hills to die on" in this space, but investigators have always had "targeted" means to deal with these without resorting to mass surveillance. I believe existing powers are adequate to investigate these crimes.
I'm also generally ok with mainstream censorship of broadcast or social media. Public speech is a different animal.
Are you referencing the barriers that were filmed... from inside the room... by the dozens of national media crews and party observers? Those barriers?
Yes? They had metal fence barriers (like at a concert) up with chairs behind them for the observers. During the recount they had the observers 30-40 ft back which meant they weren't observing anything. They were just in the room.
I saw the obvious issue with this and called to ask why. His response was that "legally we're in compliance."
Wherein people posted views from the other side of the glass claiming they were trying to count the votes in secret or something. Which was ironic, given all the news crews and observers on the other side of the glass documenting the same thing.
I agree that its BS to keep observers so far back that they cannot meaningfully observe the counting.
I'm almost certain that you're concern trolling in this thread.
However, if anyone else is actually interested in an explanation of this incident from the people in charge of the election, check out this 60 Minutes clip:
My statement was pretty bad, since it is very simplified and can be misunderstood (since the "they" is ambiguous). I posted the relevant links below, these explain the whole story way better.
> Are there good features to help lower the distraction level?
Disable all notifications on it and it quickly evolves into a regular watch on your wrist.
> Do you find it useful (and worth the price) for the passive health tracking stuff?
It's a nice companion to an Apple device in the Apple ecosystem; and, if you're someone that's not into Fitbit for whatever reason, I've found it fine.
I also own the least expensive Apple Watch 6, as I was using it as a test device to see if I'd be interested in staying in the ecosystem. I don't see a reason to leave it.
I've also bought one for my mother - who immediately disabled all notifications, too, for herself; and, she quite likes it so far. I asked her to turn on fall notification and we're friends on Apple Fitness Sharing or whatever it's called.
I think it's fine and it serves my needs. I would need to look at the market again for another device that has over a day of battery life (always-on screen off, no notifications), an O2 sensor, heartrate sensor, doesn't fight with my PiHole or VPN (Fitbit did not like me being on a VPN) and other features if I'm in the mood for them.
I use Apple Pay all the time, so it's nice there, as well.
The AW has a control center which can be accessed via a swipe up. From there you can tap the bed icon and you will not receive notifications anymore. You can also dig deeper in to the phone app and stop each app from showing notifications on the watch.
Personally I leave on all notifications that would show on my phone because I find looking at my watch less distracting than taking out my phone.
If you purely want health features, there are many cheaper options but I'd be cautious about the accuracy of the sub $100 watches. You might find like me that the watch is useful for a load of things you didn't think of. Using apple pay on my watch is slightly nicer than on the phone, setting timers is slightly quicker, checking the weather is slightly quicker, etc.
I find myself using the watch a lot for these tasks because its simply faster and lets me get back to what I was doing quicker.
What's the best medium for this? SSD or HDD?