I was going to say, "burnt" seems like a bit of an understatement. It even blew the engine block to pieces.
It's over 1,000 km from Ukraine; I don't think they have anything with that range. That is beyond even the elusive Taurus in its original form.
Yes, literally called "Flakpanzer" in German. Or "Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer" in its full form.
I think the Gepard is probably the most cost-effective way of shooting down Shaheds. These fly low and slow, exactly what the Gepard was designed for. I didn't know Jordan had so many of them, but this is good news and will help protect Ukrainian infrastructure during winter, together with additional Patriot and IRIS-T from Germany. I hope they can also secure enough ammunition.
Sure, SCSI disks will show their defective list ("primary defects", as delivered by the factory, and grown defects, accumulated during use), and they all have a couple hundred primary defects. But I don't see why that would affect the reported geometry, given that it is fictional, anway. And all disks have enough spare tracks to accommodate for the defects, and offer the specified full number of total sectors, even for long list of grown defects. Incidentally, all the 4TB disks are still "perfect" in that they have no grown defects.
And yes, ever since LBA, nobody has used sectors and cylinders for anything.
I'm not touching that post again. But a small rant about typesetting in lemmy: It seems there is no way whatsoever to put angle brackets in a "code" section. In an overzealous attempt to prevent HTML injection, everything in angle brackets is just removed when posting (although it remains there in preview). In normal text, you can use "<", but not inside "code" segments, where it will be retained verbatim.
If you're as paranoid as me about data integrity, SAS drives on a host adapter card in "Initiator Target" (IT) mode with write-cache on the disks disabled is the safest. It will degrade performance when writing many small files concurrently, but not as badly as with SATA drives (that's for spinning disks, of course, not SSD). With a good error-correcting redundant system such as ZFS you can probably get away with enabled write cache in most cases. Until you can't.
RAID is generally a good thing but don’t get complacent, follow the 3-2-1 method
To expand on that: Redundant drive setup and backups serve completely different purposes. The only overlap is in case of a single disk failure, where RAID (or similar) may save the data.
Redundancy is all about reducing downtime in case of single hardware failures. Backups not only protect you from data loss in case of multiple simultaneous failures, but also from accidental deletion. Failures that require restoration of data almost always involve downtime. In short: You always need backups (unless it's strictly a local cache, and easily recreatable), but if you want high availability, redundancy may help.
3-2-1-rule for backups, in case you're unfamiliar: 3 copies of important data, on 2 different media, with 1 off-site.
DLR und EnBW testen Versorgung von Windparks per Drohne
Nein, tun sie überhaupt nicht.
Schon ein wenig dünn alles. Die sind mit einer kleinen Drohne zu einem Windrad an Land geflogen, und der Artikel suggeriert, jetzt könnte man fast sofort regelmäßig und sicher mit einem großen autonomen Hubschrauber (2 Personen plus Material) eine Komplett-Versorgung von Offshore-Windparks machen. Auch das Video in der offiziellen Presseerklärung ist eher niedlich (um nicht zu sagen, peinich).
I had no idea that the North-Koreanification of Russia was already that far advanced. Propaganda and music so hilariously over the top that nobody could possibly believe any of it, and yet everyone must pretend to.
"Speed limit enforced by aircraft."
Ich weiß nicht, was der SUV für einen Verbrauch hat, aber die abgebildete TBM-850 hat im Reiseflug auf großer Höhe einen Verbrauch von ca. 36 L/100 km (Quelle). Wenn man die Umwege durch Straßenführung abzieht, kommt man vielleicht auf ein Äquivalent von 25 L/100km für dieselbe Strecke. Im Steigflug wird aber deutlich mehr verbraucht, so dass realistische Werte höher sind, je nach Strecke.
Für typische Sporflugzeuge kommt das mit den 15 L/100 km schon fast hin (200 km/h, 30 L/h), der Vorteil für Luftlinie bringt einen in den 10 L/100km-Bereich.
Kleine moderne Zweisitzer brauchen bei 200 km/h z. T. nur 13 L/h, da ist man schon im Bereich von 5L/100km-Äquivalent (Luftlinie vs. kurvige Straßen.
Schon bei dem Flug von Merz zu Lindners Hochzeit haben Leute berechnet, dass sein Diesel-Flugzeug (kein Jet) etwa so viel verbraucht wie die dicken Limousinen anderer Gäste. Nur dass er viel schneller da war. Und dass alle anderen Kosten ein vielfaches von Pkw-Kosten betragen.
Je nachdem, was man betrachtet, hat Fliegen mehr oder weniger Freiheiten als Autofahren. Keine Staus, in vielen Lufträumen keine Strecken- oder Höhenvorgaben, aber insgesamt viel stärkere Reglementierung.