Th4tGuyII

Edit: Changed basically the whole comment, as you’re right. I looked at the Blog, and it does state in his FAQ that he had a backup. Which frankly makes a significant part of the article completely BS - as it makes multiple heavy implications that he didn’t have any backup.

This apparently happened with “no explanation and no recourse,” putting “terabytes of family photos” and their entire message history out of reach, as well as preventing the ability to sync work across devices.

He has copies elsewhere, so why would he be worried about losing access to this data.

Also, the end of the article discusses not storing all your data in one place…

If you store your photos and files in a single place, it’s a good idea to back them up to multiple locations to protect against something going wrong. But with how integrated devices are these days, it’s hard to avoid having all your apps, purchases and media within a single ecosystem. In cases like that, there’s not a lot you can do.

So it wouldn’t be wrong of most people to walk away from this article with the assumption that he didn’t have a proper backup strategy.

Everyone always learns the hard way, just the same as I did - one copy is usually as good as no copies at all.

For data you can’t afford to lose, the 3-2-1 rule is king. Original, cold local, and remote.

All I can do is pray that my current RAM survives long enough for this stupid AI bubble to burst, like with the Crypto-Bro GPUs.

But it is kind of horrifying how easily consumers have been priced out of the RAM market - at least for newer stuff anyways

Considering everyone I know with a folding phone has had a fault with the folding part of it - I don’t think its the best idea from a durability standpoint to add yet another folding part.

If one screen or fold point breaks, you’re now left with two unusable (but perfectly functioning) screens. Seems like an expensive gimmick to me.

Fair and Balanced trade deal my backside. A cursory look through this seems like a really one-sided agreement favouring the US - with the EU making considerable trade-offs to the US, without much promise of stuff in return.

I mean you only need to read point number 1 and 2 to get a considerable idea of this. The EU commits to eliminating all tarifs on US industrial goods, while the US commits to no more or less than 15% tariff on certain goods only. That’s an insanely one-sided commitment

What’s the point in making something illegal to patent if you can just side-step it by a technicality and enforce a patent anyway?

If the point was to protect food security, then make it illegal to patent regardless of how the breed was created - sorry if you spent more breeding them artificially, food security for the people should be more important than money.