Have an immutable filesystem, where "deletes" are recoverable by going back in time. At least until you do a scheduled "actual delete" that will reclaim disk space.
Practically speaking, if you're quick an 'rm' isn't totally destructive even without backups. There's a good chance your data is still there on the disk, it's just not associated with anything so it could be overridden at any point. Best to mount the disk read only and crawl through the raw bits to find your lost data (I recovered a week's worth of code this way several years ago).
My favorite answer to the common interview question: "What was your biggest mistake, and how did you recover from it?" Answer: Back in 1993, I once deleted a critical data file. Fortunately, the AIX host was sitting next to me, so I quickly reached over and flipped the power switch off. The strategy being: writes were buffered and flushed out periodically, so hitting the power switch prevented that last write from hitting the disk. And if this didn't work (and caused more file system corruption), well I would have needed to restore from backup anyway.
Right but if you delete your entire file system there won't be anything to come along and do the "actual delete" so you're safe until some one comes along with a rescue disk or otherwise mounts it to a system that knows how to deal with this.
At the very least when you rm important-file.txt instead of importanr-file.txt you have a chance.
Pre-delete would already hide files from apps and services for them to "fail fast", and actual delete would be just "i'm running fine for two days". Of course this implies that active open files should not be pre-deleted on unix at all (at least not by rm process). Even if you delete the entire filesystem with backups, there will be a chance to boot into recovery mode and undelete everything back. We can even go further and apply small-file-versioning on fs level to prevent misconfig accidents in /etc.
That's very simple and powerful, I can't tell why it is still not implemented today.
If we're going to try to come up with a system, mine is simply (borrowed[1]): I like beef and broccoli, mind your business. I readily admit this doesn't cover every corner case, but I don't think there can be a satisfactory system that does. Many things have to be determined by context and taste, and usually aren't even worth thinking about if you're not in a position of power and responsibility over the lives of others.
What's so bad about prefacing the meeting with "Sorry guys I'm expecting a call at some point today so if my phone goes off I'll need to leave to answer it"? Some people must surely be expecting calls from someone of an unknown number every day individually, but I would be surprised if it was a large number of people.
Education on the individual level just doesn't work. People are too dumb. (I had the pleasure of rereading this recently: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/stupider-than-you-real...) Those that aren't too dumb lack personal responsibility, which is a separate problem I fully agree is pretty big, so more education might fix that, but that's sort of something you can't learn from a book, and arguably the game of chicken at teaching responsibility by making it illegal to discharge student loans in bankruptcy has just made things worse.
The solutions I think have the best shot are those that involve authoritarian decrees one way or another (that is, going full free-market or going full nationalized colleges), but that requires a government with an actual interest in governing.
"Education on the individual level just doesn't work. People are too dumb."
Honestly, If this is the case, drugs should never be fully legalized. People just can't handle the responsibility. Will addiction be the fault of the company that sold it to you?
"and arguably the game of chicken at teaching responsibility by making it illegal to discharge student loans in bankruptcy has just made things worse."
It hasn't really made things worse. If it wasn't illegal to discharge loans, students would know full well that they most likely would never have to pay it back and just declare bankruptcy when they graduated. That would be a much worse situation for our economy. On top of this, banks would never even take on these loans knowing full well that they would probably never get their money back.
The student debt problem has been bad for at least a decade. Students continue to knowingly put themselves in this position and then cry afoul when they can't pay the debt back. Lack of knowledge is no longer an excuse. Anybody with half a brain and an Internet connection can clearly see the risks (and nearly everyone now is connected to the Internet 24/7 through their phone).
I see it more as a millennial problem: the culture is to no longer take responsibilities for your own actions and blame others for all of your failures.
"full nationalized colleges"
I can't see this working out with the current climate, unless it completely ruins the intent of a university.
Fully national colleges aren't based on money any longer, they are based on making the grade. IE: if you can't pass the entrance exams, you won't get into school (as seen in pretty much any country with nationalized universities).
The system we have setup now was a response to people complaining that not everyone has a chance to go to school (back in the 50s, college was a luxury only the wealthy could afford). Now that pretty much everyone does have a chance, there are further complaints that some people made an irresponsible decision. You can't force someone to major in something that will make the ma decent living.
When I was in college, I met many people that really had no business being there (didn't care, didn't put the effort in, or just couldn't handle any of the subjects). With the dumbing down of the SATs and many other measures to make it easier to get into school not based on academics, it seems we are well on our way to ruining our institutions. The ultimate form of anti-intellectualism.
You don't even know what you're talking about. Just about every sentence you wrote has some misconception in it.
> Honestly, If this is the case, drugs should never be fully legalized. People just can't handle the responsibility. Will addiction be the fault of the company that sold it to you?
Clearly people can't handle that responsibility. That's why we have alcoholic and tobacco quitting programs and taxation to fund those programs along with education and educational advertising. It's done wonders to get people to quit.
> It hasn't really made things worse. If it wasn't illegal to discharge loans, students would know full well that they most likely would never have to pay it back and just declare bankruptcy when they graduated. That would be a much worse situation for our economy. On top of this, banks would never even take on these loans knowing full well that they would probably never get their money back.
Why is that? It never hurt the economy before. Banks stop giving out loans to uneducated idiots with no care in the world and no intention or ability to be able to pay it back? Banks not giving out loans for schools that couldn't even teach a monkey to do tricks? Oh the horror!
> The student debt problem has been bad for at least a decade. Students continue to knowingly put themselves in this position and then cry afoul when they can't pay the debt back. Lack of knowledge is no longer an excuse. Anybody with half a brain and an Internet connection can clearly see the risks (and nearly everyone now is connected to the Internet 24/7 through their phone).
A decade? You mean the exact amount of time all student (federally or otherwise) loans have been unforgivable? It's precisely why colleges no longer care to educate, and instead scam kids of every dime they have. In every angle, they get scammed, from student apartments (in my town, a shocking 2x the normal cost of a single bedroom apartment), to book stores, where you can't buy your books online with your own loan until after classes start, unless you buy them from the book store at 3 times the Amazon cost, to the classes themselves. These, by the way, are young kids who have no experience, and are told by the grownups who educate them that this is some kind of great deal for them. If course they keep getting scammed, it's a fresh batch every year!
> I see it more as a millennial problem: the culture is to no longer take responsibilities for your own actions and blame others for all of your failures.
It's too bad it's the 40+ year olds that have done all this scamming on their younger generation.
> I can't see this working out with the current climate, unless it completely ruins the intent of a university.
Yes, the conservative christian climate.
> When I was in college, I met many people that really had no business being there (didn't care, didn't put the effort in, or just couldn't handle any of the subjects). With the dumbing down of the SATs and many other measures to make it easier to get into school not based on academics, it seems we are well on our way to ruining our institutions. The ultimate form of anti-intellectualism.
This is entirely caused by the student loan situation and all the parents/teachers stressing their kids to go.
What have I told my son? that student loans are a real form of slavery, and to not take them for any reason. Either pay your own way or don't bother going. If you do go, you'll probably get ripped off unless you go for an engineering, lawyer, or doctor degree.
Or if students had the option to discharge their debt in bankruptcy at all, how many would do it. I suspect enough that we'd have something resembling the last debt crisis on our hands, but depending on how that gets handled it might encourage lenders to be a bit more careful with who they lend to and how much they're willing to lend in the first place which may then encourage schools to lower costs.
Another option (though last time I tried it, it didn't work..) is something like libtrash: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~marriaga/software/libtrash/ Deletes become moves and you can really delete when you like.
Practically speaking, if you're quick an 'rm' isn't totally destructive even without backups. There's a good chance your data is still there on the disk, it's just not associated with anything so it could be overridden at any point. Best to mount the disk read only and crawl through the raw bits to find your lost data (I recovered a week's worth of code this way several years ago).