jo909

After removing power even that small amount ends up as heat through friction ( both in the bearing but mostly in the air turbulence). And the blades end up in the same zero energy state: sitting still.

So it is correct that a 100% "end up" as heat

That means the path through the air to some conducting materials needs a certain distance, and that even when wet or iced over or whatever can happen up there.

https://cdn.ca.emap.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/04/l...

There are two cases:

Your products are faulty and at least one has not made their intended 10 year lifespan. I'd change them all for better ones.

Or

They have reached their lifespan and you only noticed because the first one failed. I'd replace them all.

They could. They would easily be found out as they loose in real world usage or improved new unique benchmarks.

If you were in charge of a large and well funded model, would you rather pay people to find and "cheat" on LLM benchmarks by training on them, or would you pay people to identify benchmarks and make reasonably sure they specifically get excluded from training data?

I would exclude them as well as possible so I get feedback on how "real" any model improvement is. I need to develop real world improvements in the end, and any short term gain in usage by cheating in benchmarks seems very foolish.

I'd rather have a computer keep track of everybody just the same but with millisecond reaction to all changes. Something that I can't do lacking eyes all around and processing power.

The cost they charge also includes the cooling, so you could see it as for example 30c/kWh for power, 15c/kWh for cooling to compare it to a consumer contract. Maybe they have published their ratio of that split "on average" before.

Seriously, why would the end of fiat cause a bank run? I would expect it would cause a switch back to trading physical goods directly, or the emergence of another currency-like thing or good (like cigarettes might have been in the past).

"To ensure that every Pi at our decentralized locations always has enough network throughput, the uplink and downlink is fixed at 10 Mbps."

Not sure about your use case, but for me that is way less bandwidth than I have at home.

How do you deal with the global scarcity of IPv4-addresses that you would need to scale your service? I think this can only work long term if you own the address space yourself and are not dependent on some specific provider or cloud.

Also very important is a local endpoint to get a reasonable end to end latency.

Of course the behavior/opinion changes they are after are somewhat limited and not too bad, and the effectiveness debatable, but they are trying hard. And machine learning is already in use.

The kernel debugging technology exists for a long time now, and I don't think its far fetched to see public clouds exposing those abilities in a secure manner, and unikernels including their own tools for remote debugging. Any kernel can be debugged, and unikernels are no exception.

Even if you disagree, "cold boot attack" is the established name for the actual attack, the new aspect presented here is how to circumvent a certain firmware protection that would overwrite the memory on a cold boot to prevent that attack.

If you would give your definition we could see if it is right, too.

Yes, for over 10 years now! (I looked up the manufacturing date from the serial number, week 29 of 2007)

I feel for your acute pain, but I think you got your moneys worth and then some out of that system, there should be plenty of saved budget to replace that with a new storage server. One that has support from the vendor.

It's a tool to be used however you see fit and what you describe sounds reasonable, but the most common (because default) setup I've seen is the 30 minute interval.

Which is why I would argue "time of last puppet run" is mostly fairly recent and consistent for all machines, but terraform apply is most often not run automatically, not even at daily intervals.

That's just not accurate enough for many applications, and resolution varies a lot.

I'm sure you'll find some customers at those prices, but it does not compare with what Hetzner is offering here just because of that.

"How are the Data Centers connected to each other?

The two Data Center Parks are both connected to Frankfurt (FFM) and each other with dark fiber. Thus, a redundant loop is formed, which ensures the availability of a Data Center should one of the connections fail. The n10 Gbit/s connections provide ample bandwidth between the Data Centers.

The bandwidth of the connections between Nuremberg-Frankfurt, Nuremberg-Falkenstein and Falkenstein-Frankfurt are at least 120 Gbit/s. Through the Frankfurt location data is transported to the peering partners at DE-CIX and also to the uplinks Noris, GLBX, Aixit, AMS-IX, Init7 and Level3. At the Nuremberg location there are connections to Noris, KPN, Init7, Level3 and N-IX.

In each Data Center several Juniper EX Core switches, each with 64x 10 Gbit/s ports, are operated and bundle the streams of the Data Center to the n10 Gbit/s backbone and then over the various uplinks. "

And here is a list of their peerings: https://www.hetzner.com/unternehmen/rechenzentrum/

That is not technically correct, and the difference matters.

The EU regulation forces it's members to implement their own local laws in alignment to the EU regulation. The EU regulation can get a member state into trouble if not implemented in time or correctly. They describe a set of "baseline" data protection laws for the whole EU, but the members can still have stronger local rules. Only the local law is what can get a resident company in trouble.

Germany has (had for a long time) very strong data protection laws that are still going to be stronger than the EU regulation.

"The host systems will be updated to fix the vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The necessary reboots will be announced on Hetzner Status. You may subscribe to be notified. "

Trains were very popular and important in the UK, transporting nearly the same amount of passenger pre World War 1 as they do today.

At this time no central locking existed and many train compartments, especially for the rich, had their own door that opens to the outside.

With handles on the inside it is much more likely to open by accident. The door contained the only window in the aisle between the seats of the compartment, where you would stand to look outside, so people naturally lean against it.

At the time central locking came around it wasn't necessarily reliable and people were already used to the situation, so there is little reason to suddenly introduce internal door handles again.