2·
8 hours agoI do watch Alec, but this came from my own - informal - work.
🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
- 0 Posts
- 28 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Corn grown for ethanol is not edible by humans. Also, do you really think growing only 29,750,000 acres of corn instead of 30,000,000 acres is a meaningful difference? Because it’s not.
Infinite small sailing ships
And infinite small sailing ships could all simulatenously dock at our fractal infinitely long shorelines, all unloading their infinitely small cargo at the same instant, simultanously flooding the earth with infinite amounts of oil and zero amounts of oil that we wouldn’t notice at all. :)
Seaman certainly do.
In the US, we use a lot of prime farmland to grow corn that we turn into ethanol - 30,000,000 acres. Thirty million acres!
That ethanol is combined with gas (making the gas less efficient, by the way) and powers our cars in the US.
If you look at the number of miles the ethanol powers in the US, and calculate how many acres of solar we’d need to power electric cars to go that number of miles, we’d need to convert less than a quarter of a million of those acres to solar. So let’s round up from 214,000 acres to the 250,000 because… inefficiencies, or whatever.
So we could gain 29,750,000 acres of land to grow more food or whatever and stop growing corn to turn into ethanol just to burn it in our cars.
For that matter, if we wanted to use that ethanol land (JUST the land we’re using for ethanol) to power ALL cars in the US, switching everyone over to electric, it would only take about two million acres. Sure, 2,000,000 acres is a lot, but that would still be freeing up TWENTY EIGHT MILLION ACRES of land we’re using JUST to grow corn we turn into ethanol.
It does ignore anything like the chaos of forcing everyone to buy a new electric car, setting that infrastructure up - I’m not saying this would be easy, but it is stunning how much land we could stop abusing to grow corn to burn in our cars.
6·2 days agoIt’s important to learn how to use package managers. :)
Ugh. At least two decades I’ve used them and never made that connection. Thank you. And curse you. lol
I guess …x. means NOTHING to you… ;-)
= 0.21
;-)
2·9 days agoIt may want a word but what it has are binaries :)
I’m here in yo Node spammin yo shit, BB :)
and can freely read anyones messages.
You do realize this is true of any service, yes? Unless there is 1:1 end-to-end encryption, perhaps. Even there, unless you’re pasting in encrypted data into the app, the app can potentially send your unencrypted data somewhere.
It had a large following back in the day. They haven’t attracted hardly anyone back. So they did have a potential jumpstart with previous users that they have failed to energize and capture.
Are you… just talking about stuff like pictures and videos and important documents? I mean, I would have thought the context was clear that that’s not really what’s being discussed. But if not, then sure, if you just have files backed up, then all you need to worry about is making sure you have enough copies of that as you need to not lose it.
Hmm. I’d better explain that.
Anywhere you have data that exists in one place, it is a matter of time before it dies. Who knows how long it’ll be, but it will eventually die.
If you have data in two places, then when it dies in one of those places, as long as it also hasn’t died in the other place, you have one copy and it will eventually die unless you replicate it somewhere else.
And many people find that when they go to read those burnded discs or read that backup external drive - oops, it’s damaged or dead. And then that data is gone.
So for unimportant things, a single backup somewhere is probably fine. But is that backup in your house with your computer that it’s also on? If your house burns, those two places are gone and your data is gone. Is that worth the tiny risk? Up to you. You know how much yo ucare about your data.
If you really want to make sure something valuable like important documents and family pictures, then ideally you want at least one copy offsite. If it’s important, it’s no bad thing to have two copies of it offsite along with perhaps one backup locally so it’s convenient. While you don’t need ten copies of data, it’s surprising how quickly 1-2 copies can go bad at the same time, or one goes bad and you don’t replace it and another goes bad and… quickly you run the risk of data loss.
For a home user who doesn’t want to lose their files,
That’s not the topic at hand, which one might’ve been able to tell from context clues.
two local backups and a cloud one.
That is a pretty good minimal setup. Not disparaging, that’s better than probably 95% if not more like 99% of people do.
Just give me anxiety?
No, you’re the one in a conversation that’s really not about your type of situation.
We’re talking about businesses who have servers - internet servers, internal servers. These run software. They have databases with largre amounts of data. They have programs that have lots of settings, configured in various ways. Servers set up to run services on the LAN and/or WAN and/or across the internet.
On your home computer, you can reinstall Windows, install Office, install Adobe, all the other software you use. And you can take the annoying time to re-customize everything to get it set up to your liking. Then copy all your documents over. You won’t have everything ready-to-go unless you use a fancy backup and restore method (that starts to touch on the subject being discussed here - that restore is not guaranteed unless you’ve tested it. It’s amazing how often that goes wrong), but it’s okay, you have time.
In a corporate environment, if something breaks and you need to restore that data and software, you need it up and running ASAP.
Now, you’d think it would be as simple as getting the hardware, installing the OS, installing the software, and restoring the data - but that’s not necessarily the case. Not the same version of the software? Data formatting might’ve changed. Settings might’ve changed. Does every version of everything work together? Underlying pieces f the system are different? Might cause things to break.
I won’t get into the technical details beyond that, but the point is that we’re not talking about just some pics and docs.
So that’s th egenesis of the misunderstandings here. It’s a wholly different topic than what you’re dealing with.
But yeah, for you, you’ve got a good backup system going. I personally have two different cloud providers for the data I want to keep the most, but that’s not all the pics and such, just for a subset of it.
Does the newly set up environment exactly match the previous? Same software versions?
And when the restoration of that data fails?
Are you being willfully ignorant or obstinate? Or do you not understand the concept that even with the data there, restoration of that data can fail in many ways?
A couple of times I needed to restore sites from backup, it failed. Not because the data wasnt there. Heh
Having the data is useless when the restoration process fails, which it can do due numerous reasons.
Voyager
Apprpropriate for a Star Trek AMA :)
Corn grown for ethanol would not help in a food shortage, so for the idea of a food shortage, it is… not helpful.
We have plenty of land not being used right now that could be used to grow food.
But we don’t have a shortage of food. We have food being wasted and thrown away. We have plenty of excess food. This is like being worried about your driveway taking up valuable lawn space. It’s… not.