I was a Unix administrator responsible for backup many years ago. When I asked the manager of the IT department for funds to do a disaster recovery exercise I was turned down flat and told that no amount of discussion would change his mind.
We knew that we could restore individual files because users asked for them when they had accidentally deleted them but we had no idea whether or not our procedures for restoring the systems themselves would work.
Better something than nothing. They must have changed this recently, even a few months ago attempts to bulk download Gsuite data led to error messages.
Also, I believe all Google products have to support takeout, just like they have to support deletion within whatever the legally mandated time frame is (months?).
I use the Cloud to store all my work and it's my way of backup. I trust Google's capacity to save my files. But, this being said, you SHOULD have other ways of backing up your data, like another HDD, storing locally in your PC too.
Sure, Google can save your files. But will it? and will you never lose access to Google?
The problem with these big cloud providers is there are employees and robots with a big "disable account button", but there's no one you can call to talk about reenabling your account. I don't know what the odds are that Google is going to hit that "disable account" button on your account, it's probably incredible small, but if it would ever happen they might have permanently deleted all your stuff before you get far enough in their customer support system to have them reinstate your account.
If my livelihood depended on Google storing my files, I'd store a backup of my data somewhere that I can access in person if push comes to shove. As a matter of fact it does, and I do.
Well I always sync my files between two PCs so I always have them stored on these. If anything goes wrong with any of these PCs (both) I always have Google. I also do some backups on both my externals HDDs so yeah I don't see all this failing anytime soon.
> Sure, X can save your files. But will it? and will you never lose access to X?
Google, DropBox, a storage server in your house, external hard drives, tapes, burnt DVDs... you can swap in any backup system there and it's exactly the same. Google's cloud is just as valid as a backup as any other.
Sure but do you Trust Google's AI not pick up something from you, or a network you happen to be connected to then determine your account is in violation of their ToS at which time all of your accounts are suspended.
Which if that happens you better hope you can get enough social media attention to have your issue attract and actual person with authority in google to do something...
If not your SOL as is your data that google "reliably saved" for you
One of the advantages of having another independent backup is that, if you need it, you not only have a backup somewhere other than a specific cloud provider but you also have a backup that's being made via a completely different mechanism.
But I know that, careful as I am, I still feel vulnerable if, for example, I lose my main data disk.
I guess thousands of companies and startups on hn would have a problem if amazon lost files on s3. Its easy to say the cloud is no backup, but its hard sometimes to have all data in multiple locations synced.
well it is a backup.
if you loose the backup but have the original, there is no problem.
if you loose the original but have the backup on a cloud, there is no problem.
of course if you loose both at the same time, that's bad. actually the best thing is of course to use multiple backup locations
It seems like there’s two types of backups people think about: Archival and Current. In the case of the former the “original” may very well be the cloud hosted backup. But I suppose the solution is the same regardless: backup time multiple providers and or locations.
As an aside, how the hell does Canon have their trademark as a TLD? Google, at least, I understand, because they control a sizeable portion of DNS; but Canon?
>Besides, the keyboard is powerful enough to run Python, will also be able to run C/C++, Rust, Go (TinyGo) and JavaScript (JerryScript). The hardware is also optimized for power efficiency.
Any chance of a summary for those who refuse to play TC/Yahoo's privacy game (which last time I did look in more depth made it pretty much impossible to completely opt out of tracking) beyond seeing the interstitial and hitting back?
According to [0] the limit in the US is 100Wh, so you could fit a battery that is three times bigger (assuming 3.3V). I don't know what the relevant numbers are elsewhere.
Actually it doesn't ban them, it just says that you don't need any special approval if you have less than two 100Wh batteries. Which is odd, because most people have more than two batteries if your counting batteries contained in devices like laptops/cellphones/etc. This regulation seems to apply only to standalone batteries.
For context 100Wh is only about 2x most normal laptops. A few systems with secondary batteries (Thinkpads for example) come within 10-15Wh of the limit when configured into their max battery configurations (although in my case that is two batteries).
I'm betting that is something you could actually walk through security with. I can't imagine the guys running the scanner are making estimates of battery capacity. For sure I've carried more than 200Wh worth of batteries before, considering for a while I was regularly traveling with two fairly high capacity laptops, a tablet, charging battery and cellphone. I'm also not the only odd ball with more than one laptop. Now that i've slimmed it back down to one, I regularly notice other people dragging out more than one.
aliexpress.com/item/33051763438.html