• 0 Posts
  • 1.5K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 2nd, 2025

help-circle

  • Businesses replace drives and systems on a schedule regardless of true wear on them - their risk vs cost metric is very different than ours.

    So used business hardware is a great value for those of us who have a sunk cost in labor/expertise.

    Most drives I’ve owned have run for 10+ years, while any business won’t run them past 5. I can take the risk of losing a drive, while it’s more important for a business to prevent losing a drive. Business disruption is a more costly event.












  • For all the naysayers - I’ve wanted a fold since the S4 (2014ish) when Samsung demo’d two S4’s hinged together.

    Being able to double screen real-estate when needed (eg having a tablet sometimes) but carrying it in a phone-sized device makes lots of sense.

    And having double the physical space inside offers an opportunity for better heat management - if only to shift the battery to the other side (also means you can fit a physically larger battery).

    Lots of potential, but also lots of hurdles to overcome. Unfortunately they’ve all focused on making the screen seamless first, rather than making the software seamless first.


  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafetoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•DC UPS for router?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Yea, small business routers (think old Cisco boxes) use a 5A laptop-style power supply. I suspect this is what OP’s using, as I’ve never seen a consumer model with such power specs. Consumer stuff is built around the cheapest hardware they can get away with.

    Thing is, I don’t doubt the Cisco box (or similar business units) may need that much juice at times. Put your hand over one that’s not connected but powered on and they get hot.

    Stuff like that they really don’t care about power consumption during design, just capability.



  • Yes, because it’s ambiguous.

    Define sugar.

    Define consume.

    It’s a blanket statement without nuance.

    Also everyone consumes sugars in some form - i.e. Carbohydrates.

    The simpler the carb, the greater the volume, the more of a concern/risk.

    Such ambiguous statements are a major problem with the medical community these days, as all sorts of things get communicated without any quantification.

    Things like you’re at a greater risk of X because of Y.

    OK, how much greater? 60%? Or 0.006%? Is that absolute risk or relative risk?

    The blood pressure debate is awash with this problem. As is the realm of biologics (used for autoimmune/autoinflammatory diseases) when looking at increased risk for infections. Yes, there’s an increased risk, but across the board of all biologics that increase is something like 1 case in 5000 man-years - with no determination if that’s truly because of the biologic or because they study participants already have immune dysregulation

    And for specific biologics and specific diseases, there’s no demonstrable increase in risk, based on massive meta-analysis.

    The devil is in the details.