You are reading enormous hostility into a simple question. I hope you are never treated as badly for your earnest behavior as you think I deserve for mine.
I did not reply as if the person were being a smartass. I replied indicating the answer did not provide me the information I had asked for. The original question was utterly specific, so I asked again for an answer to that.
"Volatile or non-volatile?" means exactly the same as what I asked. Repeating it would not add any more information.
To assume I was calling anybody stupid or a liar is an extremely uncharitable interpretation. The reasonable one is that I did not get an answer to what I asked, exactly as I said.
That appears to be space on disk for transcripts of all the traffic.
Presumably if people were not uploading GB of crap, it would not need to archive GB of crap.
Unless it keeps as many copies of everything as people who get it. That would be dumb.
But I was told that is what Gmail does. Every GIF animation, cat video, and corrupted SPAM jpg attached is stored as many millions of times as people who saw it, and probably as many again as forwarded it.
I am not "all mad". The article manifestly did not say; if it had, or I already knew, I would not have needed to ask. If it were a "bad question", we would not still be talking about how it could have been answered informatively. It was, in fact, a very specific question, with zero space for misunderstanding.
But the reply did not offer any information at all, so I asked for clarification.
Downvoting people for asking for clarification (-4 already!) is just spiteful. It would have been less work for everybody to answer the question that was asked, the second time if not the first.
Yes, RAM is immediate storage. Disk/SSD is long-term storage.
I would not have asked if I already knew the answer. I only asked again because I did not know the answer. Is that really surprising and offensive behavior? What do you do?
Apparently the third-party authentication service is needed just to get it going. If you get an "enterprise license" you can choose among more authentication services, but not yourself.
See, I have seen promotions of Tailscale and Zerotier before, but this is the first I have heard of Nebula. If with Nebula I am not beholden to some internet behemoth who may cancel my authentication without notice, I am motivated to try it.
You cannot do that. You might personally share a vision with somebody identifiable. But the vision you say you share is anyway not implemented.
Make the service usable without depending on some internet behemoth who might yank my authentication credentials anytime without notice, and we can talk.
Avery Pennarun, its CTO, is somebody whose judgment I am used to trusting.
Then I learned that to use it, I would be dependent on authenticating using a login on one of the unaccountable internet behemoths who could take away my account for any random reason or no expressed reason at all.
And if you do "forget in some places", Ada, Pascal, and Nim will not produce the correct response.
What will they do instead? We don't need to guess, we saw in the first Ariane 5: catastrophic loss of vehicle and payload, as a result of sending a crash dump report to the engine steering gimbals. $500M payload, in that case.
Yet, you would be happy to release a safety-critical system with only run-time type checking?
Engineering is a discipline that requires years of study and supervised practice, not reducible to "the art of making trade-offs". Non-engineers hired to perform engineers' jobs like to make this sort of mistake. Management might not be able to tell the difference. Thence 737-MAX.
Demands on efficiency are every bit as stringent today as in the '70s. Machines are faster, but we expect them to achieve even more. Clock rates have stagnated, but problem sizes have not.
The failure modes of C and C++ ints are less bad than is typical of construction materials. The common mistake is hiring CS people and expecting them to think and act like engineers.