What cloud backup solution are you using? A lot of them offer additional protection that would keep a history of your files. You can essentially say “once a week create a point in time recovery of all my files” and then you could recover your files from that point in time.

This usually costs extra, and it makes sense why. They’re essentially keeping extra copies of your data for you.

How that is configured allows you to determine your RPO, or recovery point objective.

https://www.imperva.com/learn/availability/recovery-point-objective-rpo/

So you can decide how much data you’re comfortable losing by determining how often those point in time recovery events happen.

Did that make sense?

The real issue here is backups vs disaster recovery.

Backups can live on the same network. Backups are there for the day to day things that can go wrong. A server disk is corrupted, a user accidentally deletes a file, those kinds of things.

Disaster recovery is what happens when your primary platform is unavailable.

Your cloud provider getting taken down is a disaster recovery situation. The entire thing is unavailable. At this point you’re accepting data loss and starting to spin up in your disaster recovery location.

The fact they were hit by crypto is irrelevant. It could have been an earthquake, flooding, terrorist attack, or anything, but your primary data center was destroyed.

Backups are not meant for that scenario. What you’re looking for is disaster recovery.

You’re right. I’m sorry

Because that’s a thing capitalism is great at? If the connection between capitalism and ruthless efficiency and iteration isn’t apparent to whoever is reading this then it’s really not worth the conversation

When the response to my question of “what do you think is better” is an esoteric shout out to a culture that’s been dead for thousands of years, that isn’t even in the first page of Google results for “six nations” yeah. You’re right. It’s not a good faith argument

Ok. Let’s switch to six nations.

That definitely answers my question

That’s zero sum thinking.

If it was 10k that is, literally, an order of magnitude cheaper.

You can’t have it both ways. The people who I know who have had cancer, and had it treated, the cost has been well over 100k. Some over 200k. That’s per time. If it came back it would cost that all over again.

So which is it. Is it evil that a new treatment could cost 90% less? Or should the capitalists do what they do and charge 300k for this better treatment?

Right? Bunch of morons who never had cancer, or never knew anyone who was diagnosed and treated for cancer, thinking a 10k treatment is expensive.

Communism Stan’s be Stanning

Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like

Lol. A single gallon of gasoline contains approximately 34khw of energy. An EV with ~300 miles of range, will have a battery with between 80 and 100 khw. Or the same potential energy as about 3 gallons of gas.

People are familiar with gas, so it seems safe. But every gas tank is a literal bomb, and that’s just for a car. I have no idea how big the storage tanks at gas stations are, but I’m assuming there’s enough explosive in there to level a couple hundred square feet if one of those goes.

You can buy a model 3 that goes 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, right now, on their website under 40k after tax rebate. Go look. Under existing inventory. All prices exclude the 7500 credit.

Are you claiming GM never made a lemon? That no car, ever, in the history of their company, was sold with a bad motor?

And stop it. You’re comparing the cost of a new battery now vs what the cost of a used battery will be in 8 years. Claiming that technology doesn’t get cheaper is absurd. You can buy a used Nissan leaf battery for $3,700.

https://www.partrequest.com/catalog/electric-vehicle-batteries/nissan/nissan-leaf

It really isn’t.

The whole point of the crate motor vs battery pack was it’s ridiculous to compare the cost of a new battery vs a used engine. If you blow an engine in a regular car it’s replaced with s used one, even if it’s covered by warranty. Used battery packs will get cheaper with time, especially 8 years from now when the warranty on a new EV is done.

Good for you that your car hasn’t broken yet. I have a friend who got a bad transmission in her Subaru, it was replaced after something like 500 miles. Are you claiming that every new ICE vehicle that had ever been sold have had 100% working drive trains for the entirety of the restraint period?

Or are you comparing your anecdotal experience with a FUD news story about one person who had a lemon of a vehicle that happened to be electric

I swear, everyone on Lemmy have their heads shoved so far up their asses about how everyone should go full internal combustion and that they’re great and have lower maintenance costs just down vote me to hell when I bring anything like this up. I know the tech and work on vehicles and combustion engines. It’s dumb to buy a $40,000 vehicle with a 300 pound engine, 200 pound transmission, mechanically complex 4 wheel drive system with upwards of 3 independently locking differentials. The resale value when the head gaskets is blown is next to nothing, and the great 5 year 60,000 mile power train warranty doesn’t even cover the average mileage people drive in 8 years. It only requires you mosty pay off the average loan length for a new vehicle. My Tesla costs 13 cents to drive about 4 miles, where the equivalent combustion car, with 400 horsepower and 400 foot pounds of torque, costs upwards of a dollar to drive the same. The high strung powerplants in performance cars require regular, expensive, maintenance, and if you actually push them will blow up in under 10,000 miles. An LS3 crate motor costs more than the car is worth and that doesn’t even include the transmission or any of the other drivetrain components. No one should buy and keep a combustion engine for more than 10 years or you risk “being the bag holder” and stuck with a cancer emitting 4,000 pound paperweight.

Even if Meta doesn’t do it themselves there are likely hundreds of companies that do, and Meta can pay them for the data they want.

No. You can confirm the server received it. That’s different from a user opening it and reading it

That’s the whole point. They can force you to agree to updated TOS before they allow you to access their app.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation

Legally you have to be able to prove someone received a thing. It’s why you get served when you’re sued. An agent physically hands you the complaint (or whatever they’re called). If the papers were put in the mail the person being sued could say they never received them.

Tell me you have never worked in IT security without telling me you never worked in IT security.

To give you an actual answer, instead of pure Internet snark, the concept you’re proposing is called “security through obscurity” if you want to research it.

The TL:DR of it is it doesn’t work. If it did, all software would be proprietary and things like viruses wouldn’t exist. The source code for Windows isn’t available, but Windows gets exploited constantly.

OP was spouting a bunch of nonsense implying that Elon tanking Twitter’s value somehow was going to end up with him profiting.

In the United States, publicly traded companies have responsibilities to timely and accurately report their financials. By Elon taking the company private, Twitter no longer has those fiduciary requirements.

That’s why I was pointing out how stupid OP was being, and banging on so hard on the public vs private company thing. Elon has, by all accounts, lost tens of billions of dollars in this whole ordeal.

Because he’s lost so much money I find it incredibly ridiculous people think this is some kind of conspiracy. Less people use it, the company is looked upon less and less favorably, and it’s reputation is in tatters. If you’re trying to make a platform to brainwash people into being racist the last thing you’d want is LESS people using it

It really wasn’t.