Note that isn't illegal, it just means the company doesn't get to get out of paying unemployment when it happens. And that's only if someone is willing to challenge them on it.
pokemaster787
joined 2 years ago
Don't listen to what he said... But SD cards are generally not very reliable. They might be fine they might die on you silently after a week.
Higher quality ones are better of course, but the quality of flash in SD cards varies wildly. I wouldn't store anything on an SD card that I don't already have a second copy of somewhere. (If I want to preserve it and it would cause problems for me to lose it)
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.
I've seen comparisons of the 32GB vs 16GB GPD Win4 and there's about a 10-15% uplift in performance at the same TDP in a lot of games with the 32GB model.
So it can give an increase in performance, or at the least let you run at a slightly lower TDP for the same performance and a bit better battery life.
Of course this was the 6800U, hard to say if the effects are similar for Intel's chipset or not.
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.
Conveniently I work in this space, but note the following is primarily my own personal opinion.
Primarily there's a few reasons I prefer Android Auto over native Android on the car:
-
Ever had a phone that's a few years old slow down in you? Now imagine you buy a car for $60k, and three years down the line the (already sluggish to begin with) Android interface is bogged down by updates and is barely usable. Imagine Spotify drops support for that version of Android Automotive. Android Auto puts all the infotainment into something the customer controls, and something external to the car so you are not dependent upon the OEM to do their own due diligence to ensure functionality and compatibility. If my phone slows down from age/wear/increased software demands, I go buy a new $400 phone. If my car's infotainment slows down I....buy a new car? (Looking at you GM)
-
Like I said it moves the infotainment to something in the customer's (and Google/Apple's) hand. OEMs do not want this. Auto makers want you locked into their proprietary Android skins for two reasons. First, making it more difficult to leave their specific company's ecosystem. They (will) build in their own apps that you'll start putting all your settings and private info on. Things like remembering a driver's preferred seating and mirror arrangement and auto-adjusting, so when your spouse buys a car you go "Oh well if we both have brand X, it'll be easier to drive each other's cars." Etc. Second, they want all of your data. Legitimately the industry is on fire right now figuring out how much consumer data we can scrape and use/sell with these systems. The Android Automotive stack in a car is 300% sending data back to the OEM of literally anything they are legally allowed to collect. Probably more, too. Plug in Android Auto from my phone and yeah they're still spying on me, but they don't have my Spotify login info or my specific apps used, they just have what the vehicle can directly measure (still a terrifying amount).
In your specific case with a third party head unit..go ham and use the stock interface if you want. Personally I'd still use Android Auto, to top off my phone and to access my local music library (I don't stream music), but a third party has a lot less interest in spying on you or locking you in the same way an OEM does.
Also out of curiosity, what head unit did you get? I've got a 2012 Cruze I've considered installing one of those on but I can almost never find anything that seems actually trustworthy.
They can be or they can be paid through "escrow" and your mortgage servicer will pay them.
Usually sites like these want to show total monthly cost though, so they tend to include estimates for property taxes and insurance in the monthly payments. Whether it gets paid through your mortgage servicer or directly by you doesn't change much.
If you've got a pressure cooker you can make pho ga (chicken pho) in under 30 minutes and it's almost as good as beef in my opinion. Also way cheaper to make than beef pho.
I've heard that, but once I tried to refund a game at 3 hours and got nothing but an automated response (denial) everytime I requested a refund.
In this specific case it was actually a game I played 2 hours of during a free weekend approximately 4 years before buying it, played one hour after buying it to see if it had gotten better, decided it hadn't and refunded it. But Steam counts free weekend playtime towards the refund window...
If there's any actual way to ensure a human reviews it, that'd be neat. 100% it was automatically denied by some code just checking my playtime and seeing it was past two hours.
Everything looks more than good except that PSU as others mentioned. 750 should be okay, I'd try to get 850 or 1000 if you can afford the extra amount.
The 3000 series is known for transient spikes that can trip OCP on power supplies that can deliver the needed wattage. Obviously don't cheap out on a no-name or low quality unit. 5900X is more than enough today, and you've got plenty of RAM. Motherboard I wouldn't consider a concern either, put that money into the PSU instead.
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.
Last time this came up, just spoofing the Firefox user agent to Chrome made it work perfectly. Maybe they block it because they haven't tested it on Firefox yet, but it works as well as it does in Chrome.
And if they haven't had the time to validate it in Firefox yet, that is a conscious choice by MS to not dedicate time specifically to validating in Firefox and treating it as a second-class web browser.