The most encouraging thing in the whole talk for me was when he told a roomful of IT folks that they need to join or form Unions and they cheered.
The most encouraging thing in the whole talk for me was when he told a roomful of IT folks that they need to join or form Unions and they cheered.
Nah. This has happened with every major corporate antivirus product. Multiple times. And the top IT people advising on purchasing decisions know this.
And that assumes no second hand
Exactly.
Having known multiple trans people and heard them talk about the arguments for and against early disclosure: Fear.
They may not be public about their status, and fear exposure to family or coworkers seeing their public profile.
They may fear harassment from transphobes. This could range from DM accusations of pedophilia to religious screeds to doxxing to death threats.
They may be trying to avoid “chasers.” There are some people for whom a trans body (particularly a transfem body) is a fetish, who don’t actually care about the person inside. Plenty of transpeople don’t appreciate that kind of attention.
Fear of rejection. They may believe that nobody will respond if they’re open about not being cis.
Also two less fear-related (and less common) possibilities:
Ideology. To some people, specifying “transman” or “transwoman” reinforces a social distinction they find invalidating or don’t accept. How many profiles have you seen that specify themselves as “cisman” or “ciswoman”? For these people, it’s a way of rejecting cisgender normativity.
Maybe they just aren’t ready to talk about their genitals yet, or have their first conversation be about their surgical plans or history. Not only can get really repetitive having that be the first conversation with every single match, it means they don’t get any of the information they’re looking for about a potential partner until much later in the process and have to invest a lot of their own time up front. Just like you want the salient information you care about early on, so do they.
The fact that you already confiscated them. Since we’re talking hypotheticals though, you could confiscate those assets at the border. Or set up international treaties with a look-back provision.
Absolutely not. At those densities, the write speed isn’t high enough to trust to RAID 5 or 6, particularly on a new system with drives from the same manufacturing batch (which may fail around the same time). You’d be looking at a RAID 10 or even a variant with more than two drives per mirror. Regardless of RAID level, at least a couple should be reserved as hot spares as well.
EDIT: RAID 10 doesn’t necessarily rebuild any faster than RAID 5/6, but the write speed is relevant because it determines the total time to rebuild. That determines the likelihood that another drive in the array fails (more likely during a rebuild due to added drive stress). with RAID 10, it’s less likely the drive will be in the same span. Regardless, it’s always worth restating that RAID is no substitute for your 3-2-1 backups.