This is a pretty big overstatement.

DO NOT USE AN SSD to store your data long-term! Solid-state storage has a very short, finite life-span.

This has not been true for years. SSDs are generally more reliable than HDDs except in write-intensive applications (and even then... It really depends on what exact models you are comparing). SSDs have a life-span mostly talked about in terms of TBW (terabytes written) rather than years for a reason, if they're powered on and not written too they'll last as long as or longer than a hard drive. (Note: Powered on regularly, SSDs can lose data if stored unpowered for a long time (months)). If you just have an archival drive you're not constantly erasing and rewriting data to, an SSD is a great choice. Reads also barely affect the lifespan of at all, so you can still access the data you want to protect (hell, write-lock the drive even and it'll last decades if powered on).

What you want to do is buy an even number of hard drives, plug them in long enough to copy your data to, and then unplug them and store them in a climate-controlled area. bout once a year, copy the data to a different hard drive

This is just plain silly. Yes, the mechanical wear of the drives spinning up and down means they'll die faster. But we're still talking MTBF measured in years. And replacing a hard drive that's barely used every single year? That's not just bad advice it's creating e-waste for no reason. Also note drives fail on a bathtub curve... If you have two good drives that lasted a year, you are increasing your chances of a failure by swapping them for two brand new drives... The best thing you can do for your hard drives is to not power cycle them constantly, any typical usage is fine. Also mechanical parts can actually wear out from disuse as well. Even archival services don't go to these extremes you're recommending.

If you really care about saving your data follow 3-2-1. 3 copies of your data (live, archival (external HDD or similar), off-site), two-different forms of media (HDD, SSD, cloud (yes cloud is an HDD or SSD but they have their own redundancy)), one off-site (in the event of a fire etc.)

Honestly 99.9% of consumers would be fine with a 2-2-1 scheme, 2 copies (live and off-site/cloud), 2 forms of media, 1 off-site. If you don't trust Google or don't want to pay for cloud storage, set up a server with redundant disks at a friend's house. Just keeping a second copy on a server with redundancy is plenty of fail over for most use cases. 3-2-1 is for data centers and businesses (and any cloud service you rent from will follow 3-2-1...) Let's not overcomplicate how difficult it is to keep data intact, if I tell someone to buy a new 12tb HDD each year they're just gonna give up on keeping it safe.

The not-so-quiet part here is "Homeless or poor people don't deserve to have their basic need of a toilet met"

They call it a "need" but proudly talk about how they're taking it away from the less fortunate.

On one hand I get what you're saying, on the other hand is Mexico going to start a war with the US because a handful of National Guard members saved a mother and child from drowning in "their" water?

I get that wars have started over more stupid shit, but I'd hope we have enough brain cells in the modern day to understand that that would be in no way an incursion or intentional act against Mexico.

makes it appear negative that they don’t see what’s going on with their money. I I interpreted that as them being ignorant of what happens with their money

To be clear, the meme is that PayPal shows the users' dead names (presumably because the account was set up prior to their transition/legal reasons)

The "I do not see it" is referencing "not seeing" the dead names in the transaction details.

Well that's assuming it's completely solid and not hollow. Hollow would probably be pretty huge, although the structural rigidity might not be great. Maybe we make a giant obsidian 3D printer and print it at like 10-15% infill.

What even is this argument?

"Scientists who say they can't afford to do X should do X"? Does he think this makes him sound smart?

How do we intend to pay a person who contributes nothing to society?

Why must we value how a person "contributes to society" via their output for capitalism?

Is studying philosophy useless? Is making art? Is reaping the benefits of a society built upon tens of thousands of years of human innovation to just sit back and relax a bit?

Humanity worked hard to get to a point where this is even a question. If you listen to the capitalists saying "If you're not working you're worthless" then you've been tricked. Tens of thousands of years of human innovation and suffering to advance society to a point where we don't all have to work, but the rich want you to think that's a bad thing. It is not natural that the benefits of all of that effort and suffering should all collect in the hands of a few at the top while everyone else suffers.

The "simple answer" is UBI because there literally is no alternative short of outright killing people that don't work to maintain automation. You and everyone else deserves a cut of that pie, we and all of our ancestors put blood, sweat, and tears into it. Let the people relax and enjoy the fruits of that society.

Unfortunately the reasoning isn't to improve school-life balance or give parents more time with their kids, it's that schools in the US are criminally underfunded and cannot afford to operate 5 days a week.

But if you don’t have coivd, and you’re the only one wearing a mask, it’s markedly less effective at preventing covid.

Worth noting that is mostly only true for cloth masks. The person you're replying to said N95, which do a lot better at protecting the individual wearing them even when others aren't masked.

Teens will feel like outcasts if they get an Android phone while their friends still use iMessage because of the green bubbles.

So I've heard this sentiment a lot, and at one point it certainly was true, but are teens still texting these days at all? I swear almost everyone moved to instant messaging over Snapchat, Instagram, Discord, etc.

I feel like it's 100% a "they don't care," the vast majority of social media users couldn't give less of a shit who runs the service, just what the service does for them.

The average person didn't quit Facebook because it was a gross invasion of privacy and FB was caught doing plenty of suspect shit - Facebook declined because it wasn't "cool" anymore and that's it. People on Lemmy are more likely to care about who's behind the service, but the average user certainly isn't going to care much or at all.

Read the article, this isn't talking about consumer-owned vehicles but the Cruise Origin robo-taxi service. They're small autonomous shuttle-style cars.

Basically GM reinvented the bus but made it smaller.

So to answer "How does it park at Walmart" - it takes the passenger to the front and drops them off then continues on its way. I believe the intent/current trials using Bolts have an app similar to Uber, you put in your current location + destination, then it comes and gets you, then drops you off.

Almost 0 value in removing a steering wheel or any kind of input to a consumer-owned car like that, makes some amount of sense for robo-taxis. (They specifically wanted passengers sharing the ride to face eachother to ease safety concerns, and they probably don't want random Joe getting up at the emergency controls and driving it off road)