Tangentism

joined 4 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

These are the kind of people that will refuse a vaccine because it has some of the inert pathogen in it but want to drink milk with the live pathogen in it to gain immunity.

You don't even need to remove all the safety labels to wipe these fuckers out but they will take quite a few others with them

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

No, it's all good. We're on the same page about disaster recovery!

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

as long as there is at least one other backup that isn't with this provider.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

Any services used with a cloud provider should be treated as 1 entity, no matter how many geo-locations they claim your data is backed up to because they are a single point from which all those can be deleted.

When I was last involved in a companies backups, we had a fire safe in the basement, we had an off-site location with another fire safe & third copies would go off to another company that provided a backup storage solution so for all backups to be deleted, someone had to go right out of their way to do so. Not just a simple deletion of our account & all backups are wiped.

That company had the foresight to do something similar & it's saved them. [edited - was on the tube when I wrote this and didnt see the autocorrect had put 'comment', not 'company']

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It may have been more devastating if they relied exclusively on google for backups.

Which is why having any data, despite the number of backups, on a cloud provider shouldn't be seen as off-site.

Only when it is truly outside their ecosphere and cannot be touched by them should it be viewed as such.

If that company didn't have such resilience built into their backup plan, they would be toast with a derisory amount of compensation from Google.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

As well as all the vehicles that mount the pavements then seriously injure and kill over 350 people each year

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

The thing is though, not all of them survived them.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Capitalism creates monocultures which increasingly leads to issues like this.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that funding, aiding and abetting a genocide while denying there's money for anything that benefits their own citizens is what's losing the democrats support.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

"The app that has kids doing silly dances and is a festering piece of shit is a natsec issue".

Those people don't realise just how fucking daft they sound!

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

It's a piss poor attempt to try control tiktok and ensure they play along. They don't really want it banned, they just want to control the flow of information and it's absolutely destroying the illusion of the first amendment!

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The Chinese government has also dismissed such concerns as paranoia and has warned that a TikTok ban would "inevitably come back to bite the US".

The fundamental ethos of the US and its propaganda of why it's the greatest country on the planet is the first amendment and the current bunch are absolutely destroying that illusion in plain sight of younger generations.

They're sending billions for wars and to Israel supporting and assisting them in genocide yet are saying to the ones they expect to pay for it that there's no money for healthcare, infrastructure, education, welfare, raising minimum wage, etc, etc, et al, and then still demanding they should receive their votes "because the other guys much worse".

I see a lot of younger people saying that both are shit, that the system is rigged and they ain't playing their game anymore. That is tantamount to revolution.

view more: ‹ prev next ›