That's kind of the point of the article, I guess. What is a museum piece doing on the battlefield?

Then why do you think manufacturers still list these failure rates (to be sure, it is marked as a limit, not an actual rate)? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious, but genuinely curious. Do you know for certain that it doesn't happen regularly? During a scrub, these are the kinds of errors that are quietly corrected (althouhg the scrub log would list them), as they are during normal operation (also logged).

My theory is that they are being cautious and/or perhaps don't have any high-confidence data that is more recent.

The Leopard 2 was designed in the 70s. So for battlefield vehicle designs, that is not necessarily outdated. Most fighter aircraft in use today were desgigned in the 70s: Su-27, MiG-29, sure, we think they're old, but the F-16, F-15, F/A-18 are roughly the same age.

Bit error rates have barely improved since then. So the probability of an error whenr reading a substantial fraction of a disk is now higher than it was in 2013.

But as others have pointed out. RAID is not, and never was, a substitute for a backup. Its purpose is to increase availability. And if that is critical to your enterprise, these things need to be taken into account, and it may turn out that raidz1 with 8 TB disks is fine for your application, or it may not. For private use, I wouldn't fret. but make frequent backups.

This article was not about total disk failure, but about the much more insidious undetected bit error.

Let's do the math:

The error-reate of modern hard disks is usually on the order of one undetectable error per 1E15 bits read, see for example the data sheet for the Seagate Exos 7E10. An 8 TB disk contains 6.4E13 (usable) bits, so when reading the whole disk you have roughly a 1 in 16 chance of an unrecoverable read error. Which is ok with zfs if all disks are working. The error-correction will detect and correct it. But during a resilver it can be a big problem.

Bloody bigots (if true). This is a desperate measure by Ukraine, from which the UAF actually refrained as long as the US supported them!

Now they don't and they don't.

So give them the means for a meaningful defense (and offensive) on their own land, and they won't have to resort to strategic bombing. (Or droning, or cruise-missiling, or whatever it's called.)

I know these are different parts of the government, but still.

Don’t think Mike Johnson wants to help Ukraine though. This is just him stalling for time.

Yes, I think this is exactly what it is.

I really can't say. But I definitely think that the latest efforts by Johnson serve the explicit purpose of making the Discharge Petition less likely to succeed.

It's a trap. If the House changes the bill, it has to pass through the Senate again, which is not guaranteed. This talk is intended to distract from the Discharge Petition that was initiated by a Democrat to approve the Senate's bill. The hardliner Republicans, first and foremost Mike Johnson, have made it crystal clear through their actions that they have no intentions of helping Ukraine. The Democrats built golden bridges by agreeing to border security measures which many of them find abhorrent, and by agreeing to combine it with help for Israel, which some Democrats also don't like at the moment. And still Johnson flatly refused to even consider it.

Speaker Johnson says the right things ("No one wants Vladimir Putin to prevail. I’m of the opinion that he wouldn’t stop at Ukraine … and go all through the way through Europe. There is a right and wrong there, a good versus evil in my view and Ukraine is the victim here"), but his actions speak louder with a very different message.

That's just drawing from a special Presidential fund. I forgot the name. It is only a couple of billions in total, and must last for a year and for everything the administration wants to support without Congressional approval.

And if the $60 billion main aid package is intended for a year, then $300 million is the equivalent of less than 2 day's worth.

"A drop on a hot stone", as we say in Germany.

They did. What the UK, the US and Russia(!) should do in case Ukraine is attacked, is to "seek immediate UN Security Council action" to provide assistance. Which the UK and the US did. Of course, that didn't achieve anything because of the veto powers of the permanent UN Security council member Russia.

The US and the UK were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum (all three memoranda, actually, there are similar ones with Belarus and Kazakhstan), but it was never intended as a mutual assistance treaty in the way the North Atlantic Treaty (the "NAT" part of "NATO") is. It was just an agreement to respect each other's territorial integrity and not to use weapons against each other. It literally says:

The Russian Federation, [...] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The cop-out clause, of course, was "except in self-defence", which is what Russia implicitly claims, when saying that its citizens in Donbas, and thus Russia itself, were under attack by Ukraine. Playing the victim has always been the preferred way to justify a war of aggression.

The part about giving up the nuclear weapons is implicit in the preamble which welcomes Ukraine to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state.

The whole Memorandum is also really short, literally fits on a single page: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Ukraine never had effective control of the nuclear warheads, although they had physical control and probably could have made them unusable, but not fire them without some serious reverse-engineering and possibly rebuilding large parts.

Yes, and that was codified by all signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. Russia tries to argue that it hasn't violated the terms because it only uses weapons against another signatory state "in self-defense", which is an agreed exception. Everyone knows it's ludicrous, but apparently even Russia does not want to be perceived as violating agreements.

The very concept of "NATO expands" is misleading. NATO doesn't decide to expand. Countries that had previously been neutral apply for membership. Contrast that to how "Russkiy Mir" expands.

Must have been someone smoking at work again, igniting that volatile molten steel.

My main server is slowly failing, and I have set up a replacement machine, and thought, back in September 2023 or so, I'll swap it in as the production server when NetBSD 10 finally comes out. So it has been running almost every RC of NetBSD 10 and I still suffer an occasional server crash on the old machine (the new machine with NetBSD 10 RCx has been solid).

I still fully support the NetBSD release philosophy of "It will be released when it's ready", not being bound by any fixed time scheme. When release candidates contain known show-stopping errors, don't release it, plain and simple. I don't follow gnats (NetBSD bug tracking) closely, so I don't know what the issues are, but I'm sure they are important enough, even if it's just building or installing hiccups.

Other than that, for my workload, there is no impressive speedup or anything, ZFS is still the same version, and still very slow deleting files; otherwise it's hard to tell, because the hardware is somewhat different.

Thanks. I'm not too good with Cyrillic letters.

Tragic, if true, but you need to work on your texts and captions. HIMARS is rocket artillery, not an "anti-aircraft missile defense system": High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System. And what is the caption in the video? PC30? BCY?

Saying it hasn't been built in 30 years is a bit misleading. Although the base Il-76 airframes may be that old, the latest substantial avionics upgrade (designated A-50U) is less than 15 years old or so (first delivery in 2011), which isn't too bad for military and aircraft systems. A lot of the E-3 equipment is older. That is not to say it is more capable than the E-3, it probably isn't, but I'd say a fully functioning A-50U should not be underestimated. It's even got toilets! Then again, it is also not clear to me that any "U" models are currently airworthy.

Also, for some comedic relief, there is a "Combat Approved" episode about the A-50. "Combat approved" is a youtube channel making unbelievably (though unintentionally) funny parodies of documentaries. Everything Russian is the absolute best, the old Russian stuff is decades ahead of anything the west is currently developing, etc. The impressive thing that they can say all this with a straight face. They have lots more of these hilarious episodes, plus dozens of short clips of aircraft landing and taking off, and some live-firing exercises.

I guess the question "why wouldn't they just build the A-100 instead?" has about the same answer as "why don't they just build thousands of T-14 tanks?". They can't. Partly perhaps because it needs Western electronics, which are difficult to obtain.

That aside, restarting production of a large and complex aeroplane is going to take years.

True, some will probably have survived, and some of those may even fly again (some percentage usually sustain disqualifying injuries during ejection). The A-50 crews probably had no way to bail out, though, regardless of where they were shot down.

This is in such stark contrast to Russian soldiers, who capture and disarm Ukrainian soldiers, who have surrendered, and then shoot them. Yes, not all Russian soldiers, probably a minority, but still, there are now several documented cases (and almost certainly many undocumented).

Yes. And unlike foot soldiers, and to some extent tank crews, pilots cannot be replaced in a few weeks, or even months, if you want them to be halfway competent in operating a complex weapons platform. Then again, given the number of pilots who have "accidentally" dropped munitions on Russian towns, "competent" seems to be relative. The alternative explanation is, of course, that the pilots knew what would likely happen over Ukraine, and did the prudent thing, "losing" their ordnance before flying into range of Ukrainian air defence, and then returning safely to base.

Going on an aerial sortie against Ukraine now seems to be just as dangerous as it was to be sent into one of the meatwave attacks on Avdiivka.

Ever since the last A-50 was downed, it has been open Sukhoi season.

IF Putin can get troops there. Through Ukraine, where the current velocity of the Russian army is roughly 1 km/month (because of massive ammunition shortage on Ukraine's side, otherwise it would be negative). That's going to be a decade or two, then.

Did the author just lazily substitute "gasoline" for "fuel", or is it really specifically a ban on gasoline? I cannot find out exactly what it is. Because farm equipment generally runs on diesel, not gasoline, would have less of an impact, if it's really specifically only about gasoline.

Missing coordination, and no early warning, because they have no A-50 on station any more. Just speculating.

I wouldn't say the US government is "gridlocked". Instead, very specifically, a single person deliberately and single-handedly blocks a vote in the House of Representatives. I find that unbelievably unconscionable, anti-democratic and all-around despicable, especially since it is quite clear that a Ukraine aid package would easily win a huge majority in the House.

Good that other people with a conscience single-handedly donate large sums.

Wow, thanks a lot for the elaborate reply. My French certainly isn't advanced enough (two years in school) to evaluate the finer points of such messages. But to me this makes a lot sense:

Yes, it is certainly a niche application, and not a mainstream French word. The same goes for the English equivalent, "Rascist". It is almost exclusively used by Ukrainian troops, and in the same sense as the article explains the use of the French "rachyst", denoting Russian troops engaged in the attack on Ukraine and everyone behind them, but specifically not the ordinary Russian citizen.

Writing messages like these on bombs and missiles has a long tradition, at least since World War II, so I think it's an actual caption on the actual missile. Showing it off on social media is a large part of it these days, but it is also done for boosting morale of the troops deploying the weapons, or by request of family and friends of casualties, certainly not for the Russian recipients to appreciate. It is also quite likely that it was indeed translated with the help of Google translate, creating the "un-French" phrasing.

Out of curiosity, how would you as a native speaker make a more fitting translation of "from Paris with love"? I do English/German translations as well as simultaneous interpretation at conferences, so I am very familiar with the intricacies of phrasing and deeper meanings and subtle connotations of idiomatic expressions, so I can totally feel your sentiment of "it's not wrong, but you would never say it like that in French."

I'm sure many English people have never heard about "Rascist", either. It's just my interpretation that seems to make sense (knowing a little French). But if you have another take on it, I'm certainly curious.

The website Desk Russie also corroborates my interpretation.

I also use this, and it works great. Another downside is that when using the free service, others can just use subdomains of your registered domains. You can always deny it, but you have to do it manually. With the premium subscriptions you can prevent that automatically for a number of domains, depending on how much you pay.

A variation of Rascist (not racist), a new word combining Russian and fascist, its use is widespread in English-language content from Ukraine. The spelling "rachyst" is a French homophone of the English pronunciation, the trailing "y" is the plural form as in the Italian "fascisti", where the word originated. Spelling it with "y" is probably just an artistic touch, or to make it look more foreign.

Funny how those fragments of the drones, that were supposedly shot down, still always fall on some high-value strategic target and severely damage it. As if the drone hadn't been shot down in the first place.

Turkey hasn't signed the Rome Statute, so they are under no legal obligations to arrest him.

"Russia" would be "Russie". What it actually says is "rachysty", which is the French variant of "Rascists".

Which could very well be the reason they held back in the past; out of consideration for oil and gas prices affecting their Western friends. Now that the biggest friend seems to have abandoned them (likely until November), that consideration is worth a lot less, weighing it against strategic benefits from reducing Russian reserves and income.

They are still capable SAR, surveillance, reconnaissance and personnel transport helicopters. The German ones are also equipped with anti-ship missiles and a matching radar system. When receiving three of these from the UK some time ago, Ukraine said they were needed and useful. Age alone is not a measure of usefulness. These are only slightly older than F-16, and nobody calls those old and outdated. Though not as glorious as fighters, they can still play an important role for rescuing or relocating personnel quickly.