I would be wary of using a stainless steel RO system. Extremely pure water tends to leach more. You may avoid a bit of plastic in exchange for heavy metals. Stainless steel tends to be 10% Nickel, 10% Chromium, which are bad and worse for you. If you do so, I would recommend getting the water tested.
Otherwise I would recommend a good plastic RO system. One where the plastic doesn't leach loads of harmful plasticizers.
I very much dislike lies, do not want to lie and would rather tell the truth even if it may harm me, but I'm not sure about the absoluteness of such an approach. A few days ago I was reading a book about a christian family helping Jews during WW II (Corrie ten Boom) and I was quite lost when Corrie marveled at the realization she doesn't have to do what the authorities say, or when she lied to the police. I would like to believe telling the truth would be better, but .. it seems suspect. Telling Nazi Jews are hiding in my house .. very much not sure what to think about that.
Note for casual readers: We are not here to live a comfy life, so, even if saying the truth leads to bodily mortal consequences for another, I can't with 100% certainty say lying would be the right thing to do.
It seems to me, there are cases when even God used / instructed Jews to use deception or something very close to it, to scare off attackers or make them kill eachother in a frenzy (different times), so I am dumbfounded on what is right.
Even God puts Himself behind a veil, for our benefit, so going around pushing truth for the sake of truth can not be correct. That would be one extreme. But I'm not sure what the criteria is.
Do you have any thoughts, or basis on criteria, when is volunteering truth / answering truthfully if asked / refusing to answer / deceiving / lying good or not. Or maybe even what is to be considered lying?
While rsync is different than cp and mv, I dislike the cp and mv destination-state-dependent behaviour.
With rsync, destination paths are defined by the command itself and the command is idempotent. I don't usually need to know what the destination is like to form a proper command (though oopsies happen, so verify before using --delete).
With cp/mv - the result depends on the presence and type of the destination.
E.g. try running cp or mv, canceling then restarting. Do you need to change the arguments? Why?
mkdir s1 s2 d1
touch s1/s1.txt s2/s2.txt
# this seems inconsistent
cp -r s1 d1 # generates d1/s1/s1.txt
cp -r s2 d2 # generates d2/s2.txt
mkdir s1 s2 d1
touch s1/s1.txt s2/s2.txt
# I don't use this form, but it is consitent
rsync -r s1 d1 # generates d1/s1/s1.txt
rsync -r s2 d2 # generates d2/s2/s2.txt
# Same as above but more explicit
rsync -r s1 d1/ # generates d1/s1/s1.txt
rsync -r s2 d2/ # generates d2/s1/s2.txt
# I prefer this form most of the time:
rsync -r s1/ d1/ # generates d1/s1.txt
rsync -r s2/ d2/ # generates d2/s2.txt
I simply try to use trailing slashes wherever permitted and the result is amply clear.
When I was little, my mother tried to teach me how to tie my shoelaces, but she
had shown me a method I did not understand and did not like, so I invented my
own way. I was proud of it for 20 years or so. A friend I trusted more than
anyone, tried to tell me in a kind way, that many people tie their shoelaces in
a bad knot. When one knows, it's easy to see even from a glance and such a
knots gets untied, but I wouldn't listen. Thought of not knowing how to tie
shoelaces seemed absurd.
I was the only one I know that would stop randomly to re-tie his shoelaces,
occasionally with people piling up behind me. It may be considered
incontrovertible evidence in truth, yet at the time, it didn't bare much
relevance to me. It was obvious that bad shoelaces were always at fault, or I
didn't apply enough force. In my mind it would be too humiliating to even
consider bad technique a possibility.
It wasn't until I had the grace to look at a knot-tying website alone, try it,
accept I was tying a granny knot, learn how to tie a standard knot, in a
recommended fast way, then proceed to one-up it in my own point of view. I
didn't get much humbler, but at 23 years old, at least I knew how to tie my
shoelaces and they didn't get untied anymore.
If it wasn't for the love of the one who had grace and has given up his grace
so we would have his grace, acting through those who follow him, Himself and
His Spirit, I would not have seen and felt the loving self-sacrifice, which
paled my self-righteousness in an humbling and emotionally painful experience
of the pain I've caused, setting me off in a search to do better, so that after
nearly a decade I would once and then many times again in humility accept what
I cannot deny, that Lord is better than anything I could imagine and Jesus
Christ is our (our = all those who accept Him) Lord and Savior.
This is enough evidence (for me, for others it's just word of mouth) to love
and worship Jesus. I've seen much more, and for that I accept what is written.
It seems I may understand and see more than many, yet still, easily and often,
I forget what I know, ignore and blank my mind, to doubt and void the
uncomfortable. Only hours ago I've yet again given in to what I know to be
bad, to lull and dull the mind, close my eyes and ears so I would not see what
I had a longing to avoid.
I write this as an admission and hoping it will be useful to someone.
To perhaps understand, that one cannot just see and one cannot just be
explained, if it affects him dearly and he does not wish to know.
Speaking of others, but showing the principle:
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
...<<specific judgement of specific people>>...
Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’...”
There an additional trick - you can put include inside a Host/Match directive.
# in ~/.ssh/config
Host proj1.*.corp
Include ~/.ssh/proj1.conf
# in ~/.ssh/proj1.conf
...
This way, I can put project-specific matches at or near the top, while being sure I don't have to wade through numerous of individual files during review.
Note that the listed probabilities of surviving N-disk failures are not correct, though after calculation, though the differences may not be that important.
Listed survival probability of N-disk failure in 8-drive/4-vdev mirror.
If we were to only compare survival after a fixed number of drives failed vs. storage efficiency, RAIDzN should always come out ahead in any configuration - with mirrors you can get unlucky drives choice fail, with RAIDzN any choice is a good choice. Only way to have RAIDz fail sooner than mirror is to have a comparatively less redundant setup (your choice of N and K).
Realistically though, RAIDz recovery is longer and more stressful, so more of your drives can fail in the critical period, and, assuming you have backups, your storage is there for for usability - mirroring gives you a performant usable system during a fast recovery for the price of a small chance of complete data loss (but you have backups?) vs RAIDz that gives you long recovery pains on a degraded system, but I expect a smaller chance of data loss on a lightly loaded system.
I'm not sure why people keep talking about teflon pans and dental floss. There are PFAS in products that necessarily release them into human bodies and the environment, in dispersed form rather than flakes that would usually pass the digestive system.
A few examples:
- food containers coated with PFAS (usually single use, often cardboard)
- water-repellent PFAS spray for clothes, shoes, cars/whatever
- surface PFAS treatment of clothes/shoes/whatever (better but still rubs off)
- PFAS bike-chain lube
Why are any of these things legal? They cause much more exposure, by design cannot be contained and spread PFAS everywhere you go. They are the reason there are PFAS in snow on Mt. Everest.
Pans, medical tubes and maybe even inner layers in clothes can at least theoretically be responsibly disposed of, e.g. by reasonably contained incineration. I don't want to support unneeded PFAS, but pans seem a whole different category than spray-on PFAS for "weather-proofing" that people use because shrug "it helps I get less wet".
While I don't like proprietary firmware, I'm not sure if the line is drawn at a useful place.
If you have firmware/software/whatever in a device, which is updateable (as opposed to mask-rom or hard logic), I'd much rather have it transparently managed by an OS I can control, than some EEPROM with often proprietary, inscrutable, I-ask-you-nicely-please-update-your-firmware update mechanism.
IMO, the difference is:
- with OS provided firmware (and preferably no writable storage), I can be sure my device is running the same SW as the rest of the world
- with dozens of EEPROMs in my device, I can never be sure what is running on it.
Firmware that is legally not redistributable is a non-trivial, though perhaps less bothersome issue. Firmware that requires manufaturer's signature is bothersome but I would still prefer it over inscrutable hidden firmware.
Otherwise I would recommend a good plastic RO system. One where the plastic doesn't leach loads of harmful plasticizers.