Dave.

There’s a lot to be said for “http://yourISP.com/~username” being available 24/7 at no particular effort to you.

Blu-Ray USB drive and M-Discs is about the best you can get at present. Keep the drive unplugged when not in use, it’ll probably last 10-20 years in storage.

Seeing as there hasn’t been much advance past Blu-ray, keep an eye out for something useful to replace it in the future, or at least get another drive when you notice them becoming scarce.

90% of users when presented with the UAC popup appears when they do something:

“Yes yes whateverrr” <click>

when they’re powered down.

There’s no periodic cell refresh in flash memory like there is in DRAM. When USB sticks are plugged in, all you are doing is powering up the flash chip and interface ICs.

You’d have to read a block then write it back to actually refresh the stored charges in the cells.

They need to learn how to use their tools better. Winscp does all that transparently for you if you press F4 on a file on a remote system. Or maybe they did and you just didn’t see it…

It’s quite a handy function when you’re diving through endless layers of directories on a remote box looking for one config file amongst many.

Most times what I get when asking it coding questions is a half-baked response that has a logic error or five in it.

Once I query it about one of those errors it replies with, “You’re right, X should be Y because of (technical reason Z). Here’s the updated code that fixes it”.

It will then give me some code that does actually work, but does dumb things, like recalculating complex but static values inside a loop. When I ask if there’s any performance improvements it can do, suddenly it’s full of helpful ways to improve the code that can make it run 10 to 100 times faster and fix those issues. Apparently if I want performant code, I have to explicitly ask for it.

For some things it will offer solutions that don’t solve the issue that I raise, no matter how many different ways I phrase the issue and try and coax it towards a solution. At that point, it basically can’t, and it gets bogged down to minor alterations that don’t really achieve anything.

Sometimes when it hits that point I can say “start again, and use (this methodology)” and it will suddenly hit upon a solution that’s workable.

So basically, right now it’s good for regurgitating some statistically plausible information that can be further refined with a couple of good questions from your side.

Of course, for that to work you have to know the domain you’re working in fairly well already otherwise you’re shit out of luck.

If library devs do versioning correctly, and you pin to major versions like “1.*” instead of just the “anything goes” of “*”, this should not happen.

Your unit tests should catch regressions, if you have enough unit tests. And of course you do, because we’re all operating in the dream world of, “I am great and everyone else is shit”.

If you’re interested in the systems behind Apollo, go find and read “Digital Apollo”.

It goes all the way through the project and describes in good detail everything, how they developed the control systems, the computer hardware, how the software was designed, how they implemented one of the first real computer systems project management, all the interactions between astronauts/test pilots who still wanted to “manually fly the lander”, the political back and forth between competing teams, the whole thing.

It’s a great read if you have a technical mindset.

They also came from a time when hard drives could draw several amps while in use and much more on spin-up. There was a good reason why SCSI drive arrays used to spin each disk up one-by-one.

Molex connectors are good for 10 amps or so, SATA connectors couldn’t have handled that amount of current.

Excuse me, “UXers” is not the preferred term any more. You should be using “HXers”, as per the article.

In my opinion, replacing “users” with “humans” feels wrong in much the same way as when incels replace “women” with “females”.

They are reducing the accuracy of the description. All users of computers can generally be assumed to be human. All humans cannot generally be assumed to also be users.

“Have you tried formatting your PC and completely reinstalling Windows? That often fixes icon misalignment on the desktop. Please upvote if this helps you!” - every “volunteer Microsoft Support Forum” representative ever.

Usually iterations of:

“Closed and locked due to duplicate of: (question asked 9 years ago about Visual Studio 2011 and Visual Basic, when you’re using VS code '22 and C#)”

“This seems like an XY problem, what are you really trying to accomplish?”, after a one thousand word post describing in detail exactly what you are trying to accomplish and the many different reasons why you can’t just use #GENERIC_EVERYDAY_METHOD.

Either that or the quick and dirty method that I want for a one off data conversion that uses standard libraries is heavily down voted and lost while the elaborate, all-cases-considered, 7-third-party-library-using answer becomes the top result.

how the IT team tries to justify being locked into Microsoft, and then telling me I could potentially become a point of vulnerability

Because they can manage and control all the windows PCs , pushing updates automatically, restricting what users can do locally and on the network, they have monitoring tools and whatever antivirus and antimalware tools they have, and are able to easily manage and deploy/remove software and associated group licensing and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile you’re a single user of unknown (to them) capabilities that they now have to trust with the rest of their system, basically.

The first rule of corporate IT is, “control what’s on your network”. Your PC is their concern still, but they have no effective control over it. That’s why they’re being a bit of a pain in the ass about it.

I’m guessing something like:

Robots.txt: Do not index this particular area.

Main page: invisible link to particular area at top of page, with alt text of “don’t follow this, it’s just a bot trap” for screen readers and such.

Result: any access to said particular area equals insta-ban for that IP. Maybe just for 24 hours so nosy humans can get back to enjoying your site.

in which case I will go one level down, to the calculateExtraCommissions() method.

In which case you will discover that the calculateExtraCommissions() function also has the same nested functions and you eventually find six subfunctions that each calculate some fraction of the extra commission, all of which could have been condensed into three lines of code in the parent function.

Following the author’s idea of clean code to the letter results in a thick and incomprehensible function soup.

But it’s three more letters. No deal.

You’re right, I try to use {insert cryptocurrency that I’m heavily financially invested in} for my every day transactions as much as possible, you should too, and you can get amazing returns as well! It’s win-win nobody loses ❤️

Ok I’ll just inject a little bit of context into those numbers because it smells faintly of a hit piece by Reuters, simply because of the timeframe used and the number of employees spaceX has.

My experience is 30 years in the mining industry, which in that time has become pretty good at managing safety, and reporting on it.

So I’ll dig in a little.

Since 2014, so nine years.

SpaceX employee count : 13000 approximately.

Take about a quarter of that to weed out the paper pushers and company growth since 2014, gives us 3500 or so employees in the line of fire (that is, manufacturing and such).

600 reportable injuries, so about 66 injuries a year. About 5.5 a month on average, over 9 years.

Now those 3500 employees work 60 hour weeks (because: spaceX). So 5.5 injuries and 840,000 man-hours a month. I’m going to round those hours up to 1 million for convenience and to counter the fact that I ditched quite a few people in my initial assessment of SpaceX employees in the line of fire before.

And with a bit of half-assery , I say, “ta-da!” and get 5.5 reportable injuries per million man-hours at SpaceX over the last 9 years.

So, what kind of number is that? Well for tracking this kind of thing normally you would work on a value called that “lost time injury frequency rate” - LTIFR - which is the number of injuries per million hours worked. Oh look, my previous rounding to a million has become very convenient.

Looking at the data that Reuters has given, and my half-assed guesses about employees, spaceX has a long term LTIFR of 5.5. Note that number drops significantly if you use SpaceX’s entire employee base, which as a single entity, they would be quite entitled to use and report.

How does that number stand up against industry norms? 5.5 is middle of the road for manufacturing and construction, generally, but that includes all sorts of manufacturing, from building houses, to steel foundries , to making cars.

The fact that Reuters had to take 9 years of data to make the raw numbers sound alarming enough is a bad smell. They could have calculated LTIFR numbers for each year and figured out a trend and if that was alarming enough, they could have reported on it, like “SpaceX increasingly dangerous to work at!”. The fact that they didn’t makes me suspect it’s a hit piece, although I am willing to accept they didn’t want to get into LTIFR numbers and are dumbing it down for the general public.

Absolutely the number of serious injuries is a concern. Serious injuries are also at the top of a “injury pyramid”, with every layer underneath broader, all the way down to “Ow, I stubbed my toe”. If you have real figures for one layer (like a layer where an employee can’t hide an injury), you can get a good idea of what the other layers should look like.

Judging from Reuters’ numbers, the bottom “minor” layers aren’t getting reported enough, which suggests a lack of safety culture at SpaceX. Although that could simply be from Reuters’ using only public records, which, you know, only keep track of injuries worth keeping track of, so the bottom of that pyramid might only be seen by SpaceX internally.

In conclusion, the reporting by Reuters of raw numbers over long timeframes is suspect. That’s not how things are done in the safety industry, which works with weighted metrics to get results they can compare between companies. Dig in a bit further yourself.