If I'm not mistaken, that's the point the person above you was making. Those stickers on dump trucks that say "Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for broken windshields" are worthless from a legal perspective.
They do absolutely nothing to remove liability from the truck driver/company. If a rock falls from their truck and cracks your windshield, they absolutely are responsible for any damages.
Rather, their sole value is to convince drivers that the trucking companies aren't at fault, so that drivers whose vehicles are damaged from falling rocks erroneously elect not to press charges or pursue damages.
Actually yeah, you're probably right. That's probably their main value followed by what I commented originally (in the case drivers aren't far enough back and get hit by a rock).
Such a lawsuit, if one was filed, would be in civil court, where nothing is guaranteed. If, in the unlikely case that the suit was not settled and it actually went to jury, no judge would direct that jury that truckers "absolutely are responsible for any damages."
If you are tailgating directly behind a rock truck with a big sign "stay back 200 feet" for an extended period of time, or end up right behind the truck because you're in a big hurry, or because you thought you could squeeze through an empty lane, a good lawyer could absolutely argue, successfully, that you are at least halfway responsible for the damage, if not 100%.
I disagree. Likely this type of suite would be handled in small claims court so there is no jury and no lawyers. Also, the law is really clear. There is no scenario where trucks are allowed to spill stuff on the road. The only argument they might try is to say that the rock didn't come from the truck but was kicked up off the road as they drove. But you know, that's probably not going to work if the truck was indeed carrying rocks. I think you might be giving lawyers too much credit. Really all they will do, is make it so painful for you to get in front of a judge, that you give up.
what law are you quoting? in what city/state/country?
I certainly agree that in many cases a rock truck causes damage to entirely innocent drivers who happened to get in the vicinity of spilled rocks without ever intending to (for example if the rock truck passes them, or at intersections, etc.
However -- you said "they absolutely are responsible" and I'm saying, no, it depends. Rock trucks are annoying and dangerous but are clearly necessary for cities to build roads and other infrastructure. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to fully, absolutely secure a rock truck. If a rock truck company came to court prepared with evidence that it had followed (or exceeded) every safety and regulatory procedure, and perhaps that its accident rate is lower than industry average, and further, that the "victim" was tailgating right behind the rock truck (probably in attempt to pass) despite a prominent "stay back 200 feet" sign, even a small-claims judge might say, it's half-and-half, or -- especially if the truck had video of the other driver performing a dangerous maneuver -- that it's actually the driver's fault and therefore no liability from the rock truck company.
> Really all they will do, is make it so painful for you to get in front of a judge, that you give up.
because a dangerous driver will realize that their case is extremely weak due to failing to follow the 200-ft sign. mission accomplished.
I purchased an external 4TB SSD and I make a point of backing my stuff up offline (downloading via Takeout) every few weeks just in case some catastrophic accident happens on Google's end that results in my data being permanently deleted.
I store the local drive in a "fireproof" safe (note: fireproof is a bit of a misnomer, since stuff can still burn in a fireproof safe, though it's a better bet than not having one in the case that your home/apartment catches fire).
I also back up to Amazon Glacier as a third offsite backup. One could also use S3 for this, though it might be a bit more expensive than Glacier.
It’s basically the good old 3-2-1 backup rule: Three copies of your data (your production data and two backups) on two different media, with one copy off-site.
as an archivist 3-2-2-1 is better. The second 2 indicates that the two backups should be on two different brands of media in case of a catastrophic design flaw.
3-2-1 strategy is also a good idea. The SSD in a safe place is great but in case of deep catastrophe, I prefer some sort of easy-access cloud solution, preferably one that's zero knowledge, either because it has it baked in or because you use something like cryptomator.
For cloud backup of anything i've never trusted Google for shit, even aside from its grotesquely parasitic "privacy" policies (a complete joke of a word for anything to do with that company).
Instead, so far I've tried several and maybe unexpectedly, the most easy to work with and simply functional across multiple machines and several external drives has been SpiderOak. Its desktop interface is shit, but the overall service is easy to use and has never failed me one so far, and it constantly, incrementally conducts deduplicated backups of even minor file/folder changes as long as it's running.
As a second option, Arq has been nice too, though its UI is also rather clumsy.
I keep running out of space because of the photos that my phone keeps automatically uploading to Google Photos. I've done a couple of downloads now, but now it's just sitting on my hard drive. I clearly need a better place to store my photos. Preferably somewhere where we can look at them, enjoy them and organise them.
I've been thinking about getting a NAS, but I feel like I probably need something more than that. It's all pretty new ground to me, though. I think I want to run my own "cloud" from my home that my phone can sync with, helping me organise this stuff and show it to people I want to share it with. But controlled by me and not by Google or some other cloud service.
Synology has a good suite of products here that run on their NAS devices. Moments is a Google Photos clone - not quite as good, but definitely good enough.
Glacier should be sufficient for catastrophic accidents. It's cheap to store ($1/TB/mon), the traffic costs are damn expensive ($90/TB) but you won't need to pay for it except in catastrpohic cases. However you will need to somehow make sure you will be able to access the data when you do need it.
For online storage I've found cloud S3 storages to be substantially better than customer-faceing services like Google Drive, OneDrive or Dropbox. Amazon S3 may be expensive but you can use Backblaze B2 for $6/TB/month which is as good and as fast. Then use rclone as file browser. You can share single files by generating download link so others can download at 1Gbps no hidden limits.
The real question is whether it’s better off in the fireproof safe that you most likely will not have time to access in an actual emergency, or directly in your emergency “go-bag”.
If your failure mode is "Google loses my data", putting it in the secure safe is best. It's not likely Google will have data loss on the same day your house burns down.
What emergency could affect both you and Google, but not lead to the kind of apocalyptic situation where you'd prefer an extra first aid kit, food or ammunition to a hard drive in your go bag? Perhaps if you're on the US West Coast, a huge earthquake is a legitimate worry here.
it could though a couple of months after house burns down and you are kinda busy these two months and making a new onsite copy is not the main priority.
Suggestion: with these topics always start with working on your threat model and risk matrix and let everything else come out of that. This helps focus the effort and the mitigations on what is relevant for you and what you're protecting.
You can use Rsync to copy everything from Google Drive as a cron job. If you want copies of your Google Docs and Sheets you'll need something like SyncDocs to download and convert them to MS Office format.
Ideally, you also have at least a couple independent board members who are seasoned business/tech veterans with the experience and maturity to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
Sorry if this should be self-explanatory, but what is corporate "cannibalism"? What does this refer to, generally speaking (not necessarily specific to the OpenAI situation)?
