Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://fediscience.org/users/ct_bergstrom/statuses/110311749037729052">Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JST</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom" title="ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/64543-48-20230504133201.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Carl T. Bergstrom" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Carl T. Bergstrom</a><div><ul><li><li><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/user/115243" title="arstechnica@mastodon.social">Ars Technica</a></li></ul></div></section><article><p>Sadly, <a href="https://mastodon.social/@arstechnica">@arstechnica</a> is embarrassing themselves with their innumeracy here. </p><p>The average time-to-failure of HDDs is not less than three years, and the study in question does not claim that they do.</p><p>So what went wrong....?</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/@arstechnica@mastodon.social/110310597119922958" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://fediscience.org/@arstechnica@mastodon.social/110310597119922958</a> h/t <a href="https://mastodon.social/@waldok">@waldok</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/1433580#notice-2923830">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-05-05T03:36:00+09:00" title="Friday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JST">Friday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/110311749037729052" rel="external" title="Sent from fediscience.org via ActivityPub">fediscience.org</a></span></span><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/110311749037729052">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/622797">Untitled attachment</a></label><br></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/903906">Ars Technica @ 4h @arstechnica@mastodon.social HDDs typically fail in under 3 years, Backblaze study of 17,155 drives finds Seagate still stands out.</a></label><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/741/530/493/919/original/6a92cd64047dce72.png" rel="external">https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/741/530/493/919/original/6a92cd64047dce72.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Friday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JSTCarl T. Bergstrom
- waldok :polarbear:
- Ars Technica
Sadly, @arstechnica is embarrassing themselves with their innumeracy here.
The average time-to-failure of HDDs is not less than three years, and the study in question does not claim that they do.
So what went wrong....?
https://fediscience.org/@arstechnica@mastodon.social/110310597119922958 h/t @waldok
In conversationFriday, 05-May-2023 03:36:00 JST from fediscience.orgpermalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment
2. Ars Technica @ 4h @arstechnica@mastodon.social HDDs typically fail in under 3 years, Backblaze study of 17,155 drives finds Seagate still stands out.
  https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/110/311/741/530/493/919/original/6a92cd64047dce72.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice