People are also missing that this extra bandwidth will help with mesh systems.
Not everyone is savvy enough, or has the ability to run Ethernet to every access point. The additional bandwidth here will help people who need better Wi-Fi, but are only going to buy an easy off the shelf solution
The real issue here is backups vs disaster recovery.
Backups can live on the same network. Backups are there for the day to day things that can go wrong. A server disk is corrupted, a user accidentally deletes a file, those kinds of things.
Disaster recovery is what happens when your primary platform is unavailable.
Your cloud provider getting taken down is a disaster recovery situation. The entire thing is unavailable. At this point you're accepting data loss and starting to spin up in your disaster recovery location.
The fact they were hit by crypto is irrelevant. It could have been an earthquake, flooding, terrorist attack, or anything, but your primary data center was destroyed.
Backups are not meant for that scenario. What you're looking for is disaster recovery.
Is there another app on your phone that can manage your calendar?
If desktop is ok the changes aren't syncing back to Google, so it's got to be something on your phone.
Because that's a thing capitalism is great at? If the connection between capitalism and ruthless efficiency and iteration isn't apparent to whoever is reading this then it's really not worth the conversation
When the response to my question of "what do you think is better" is an esoteric shout out to a culture that's been dead for thousands of years, that isn't even in the first page of Google results for "six nations" yeah. You're right. It's not a good faith argument
Ok. Let's switch to six nations.
That definitely answers my question
That's zero sum thinking.
If it was 10k that is, literally, an order of magnitude cheaper.
You can't have it both ways. The people who I know who have had cancer, and had it treated, the cost has been well over 100k. Some over 200k. That's per time. If it came back it would cost that all over again.
So which is it. Is it evil that a new treatment could cost 90% less? Or should the capitalists do what they do and charge 300k for this better treatment?
Right? Bunch of morons who never had cancer, or never knew anyone who was diagnosed and treated for cancer, thinking a 10k treatment is expensive.
Communism Stan's be Stanning
Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like
I really don't.
The whole topic, in the current political environment, is so polarizing and so toxic, I think it torpedoes any progress that could be made in reducing gun violence.
I believe gun violence will go down if people have better mental healthcare, better access to housing, and better job prospects. My personal belief is people who commit violence against others are doing so because of mental disease. If you reduce their stress, make their future prospects better, and tell them they have a future, their prospects, and mental health, will improve.
America is more polarized now than it ever has been. A conservative and a liberal will never agree on gun control. They just won't. But I do think a liberal and a conservative can agree that violence is a problem, and that conservatives would be willing to consider solutions to it that aren't simply making firearms illegal.
It obviously wouldn't reduce gun violence to 0 like a ban would, but focusing on it as a mental health issue, and addressing that, would reduce other forms of violent crime too. Less muggings, stabbing, rapes, etc. I believe, taken as a whole, there would be less crime and drastically less violent crime, doing that, than any kind of firearm ban could achieve.
Edit: the downvotes prove my point. American politics right now care more about winning whatever hot button issue someone has, rather than cooperating to make meaningful change.
How about everyone reading this does a mental exercise. Let's say liberals decided not to care about gun control, and that issue wasn't relevant in American politics for the last 20 years. Do you think the current supreme court would look the way it does? Do you think organizations like the NRA would have anywhere near the funding and power they have now? How many single issue conservative voters did simply not show up to vote if there was 0 chance a liberal majority would "take their guns"
I have never said anything about gun control, for it or against it.
This is a mental health issue. Happy, well adjusted people don't murder other people.
It's interesting you mention Sandy Hook. Did you know on the same day in China a mentally ill person ran through a Chinese school and stabbed 22 kids in the fucking head?
Stabbings in Chinese schools are a huge issue. The person killed 8 of the kids by stabbing them in the head.
But sure, keep focusing on guns. Let's put all of our effort into that. That's clearly more important than free, publicly funded mental healthcare.
The best thing you can do is treat her respectfully. Say hello when you pass and be courteous when you talk, but putting up the professional barrier to any kind of personal relationship likely is your best strategy.
Your coworkers also see these traits. They will see you treating this person with respect, but also not participating in her drama. That's the mentality you should have to forming a winning workplace presence. People will see you treat her kindly, but also do not participate in the drama.
Everyone respects that person