People are also missing that this extra bandwidth will help with mesh systems.
Not everyone is savvy enough, or has the ability to run Ethernet to every access point. The additional bandwidth here will help people who need better Wi-Fi, but are only going to buy an easy off the shelf solution
By definition a disaster recovery solution needs to be geographically separate. You’re protecting yourself from catastrophe, and some of those scenarios include your main location burning down, flooding, being hit by a tornado, etc etc.
So you either need to collocate systems with a friend who you trust, purchase colocation services from a provider, or use a cloud service to achieve what you’re looking for to truly have a DR solution.
As far as how to do that, the main idea is to have that point in time available on a system that, even if you get compromised, the backups won’t. The old school method here is to use an external hard drive or a tape device, and physically store that offsite. So like use your regular backup mechanism, and in addition to what it’s doing now schedule a daily/weekly/monthly job that backs up to this other device, and then store that away from your main location.
That’s essentially the idea though, and there are any number of solutions you can use to do it.
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.
Is there another app on your phone that can manage your calendar?
If desktop is ok the changes aren’t syncing back to Google, so it’s got to be something on your phone.
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
I really don’t.
The whole topic, in the current political environment, is so polarizing and so toxic, I think it torpedoes any progress that could be made in reducing gun violence.
I believe gun violence will go down if people have better mental healthcare, better access to housing, and better job prospects. My personal belief is people who commit violence against others are doing so because of mental disease. If you reduce their stress, make their future prospects better, and tell them they have a future, their prospects, and mental health, will improve.
America is more polarized now than it ever has been. A conservative and a liberal will never agree on gun control. They just won’t. But I do think a liberal and a conservative can agree that violence is a problem, and that conservatives would be willing to consider solutions to it that aren’t simply making firearms illegal.
It obviously wouldn’t reduce gun violence to 0 like a ban would, but focusing on it as a mental health issue, and addressing that, would reduce other forms of violent crime too. Less muggings, stabbing, rapes, etc. I believe, taken as a whole, there would be less crime and drastically less violent crime, doing that, than any kind of firearm ban could achieve.
Edit: the downvotes prove my point. American politics right now care more about winning whatever hot button issue someone has, rather than cooperating to make meaningful change.
How about everyone reading this does a mental exercise. Let’s say liberals decided not to care about gun control, and that issue wasn’t relevant in American politics for the last 20 years. Do you think the current supreme court would look the way it does? Do you think organizations like the NRA would have anywhere near the funding and power they have now? How many single issue conservative voters did simply not show up to vote if there was 0 chance a liberal majority would “take their guns”
I have never said anything about gun control, for it or against it.
This is a mental health issue. Happy, well adjusted people don’t murder other people.
It’s interesting you mention Sandy Hook. Did you know on the same day in China a mentally ill person ran through a Chinese school and stabbed 22 kids in the fucking head?
Stabbings in Chinese schools are a huge issue. The person killed 8 of the kids by stabbing them in the head.
But sure, keep focusing on guns. Let’s put all of our effort into that. That’s clearly more important than free, publicly funded mental healthcare.
Interesting you’d label a guy advocating for universal healthcare and increased education spending a conservative.
You’re not even listening to my arguments.
Murdering another human is a sign of mental disorder. Especially if it’s in a case like this. I don’t think it’s possible to argue “this human is acting rationally, losing control of yourself to the point where you literally murder someone is, indeed, a sign of mental stability.”
Also, access to guns isn’t the reason people murder each other.
In Christmas Day a 36 year old stabbed 2 children, 2 girls aged 14 and 16, for no other reason than seemingly, they weren’t white. A fucking racist asshole decided to attempt to murder kids. Is this person not suffering from a mental disorder? Should we stop people from owning knives too?
Again, I have never said this was about gun ownership. People who think violent crime stops if guns are gone are delusional. It’s such a rhetorical trap. I bet conservative leadership in the United States love when liberals make this an issue, it’s one of huge issues that motivates their base.
This is now, and always will be, a public health issue. You want less people to be victims of violent crime? Give us universal healthcare that also covers mental illness. Make it free, make education high quality, and free too. Crime will go down, violence will go down.
The political discourse about guns disguises that entire debate. And it’s stupid that people fall for it.
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.
Like I said, I’m not defending guns.
What I hate is people who attack where I live, with sweeping generalizations about how shitty a place it is. It isn’t. The United States is entirely neutral. There are good things about it and bad things about it. Every country has their issues, and reducing violent crimes to such a simplistic focus as “lol, guns bad, USA sucks” is catastrophically stupid.
One of the main ways I judge people is if they punch down. A good example of this is Trump’s feud with Greta Thunberg. At the time he was president of the United States. And she was a 16 year old autistic girl. Think about that. For a time the president of the United States, a person with literal tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, decided that a 16 year old, foreign, autistic girl needed the focus of his ire. That’s punching down. And it’s classless.
So if you think the United States is shit, that’s fine. But if you live in a place that you think is so much better than it, you can say that in a way that’s constructive. There’s no need to attack somebody or some thing you think you’re better than
There are 335 million people in the United States.
One asshat shot someone.
I’m not defending guns, shitty culture, or shitty people, but this is clearly a case where this kid has some sort of mental disorder. Literally hundreds of millions of families watched Charlie Brown and went the entire holiday without murdering each other
The best thing you can do is treat her respectfully. Say hello when you pass and be courteous when you talk, but putting up the professional barrier to any kind of personal relationship likely is your best strategy.
Your coworkers also see these traits. They will see you treating this person with respect, but also not participating in her drama. That’s the mentality you should have to forming a winning workplace presence. People will see you treat her kindly, but also do not participate in the drama.
Everyone respects that person