Hopfgeist

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 So for battlefield vehicle designs, that is not necessarily outdated.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