Just had my COVID-19 first vaccination (Pfizer/BioNTech)

Just got back from having my first COVID-19 vaccination. Started queueing at 10:40, pre-screening questions at 10:50, all done by 10:53 then I poked at my phone for 15 minutes while waiting to check I wouldn’t keel over from anaphylactic shock (I didn’t).

I was first notified that I should book an appointment in the form of a text message from sender “GPSurgery” on Monday 22nd February 2021:

Dear MR SMITH,

You have been invited to book your COVID-19 vaccinations.

Please click on the link to book: https://accurx.thirdparty.nhs.uk/…
[Name of My GP Surgery]

The web site presented me with a wide variety of dates and times, the earliest being today, 3 days later, so I chose that. My booking was then confirmed by another text message, and another reminder message was sent yesterday. I assume these text messages were sent by some central service on behalf of my GP whose role was probably just submitting my details.

A very smooth process a 15 minute walk from my home, and I’m hearing the same about the rest of the country too.

Watching social media mentions from others saying they’ve had their vaccination and also looking at the demographics in the queue and waiting room with me, I’ve been struck by how many people have—like me—been called up for their vaccinations quite early unrelated to their age. I was probably in the bottom third age group in the queue and waiting area: I’m 45 and although most seemed older than me, there were plenty of people around my age and younger there.

It just goes to show how many people in the UK are relying on the NHS for the management of chronic health conditions that may not be obviously apparent to those around them. Which is why we must not let this thing that so many of us rely upon be taken away. I suspect that almost everyone reading either is in a position of relying upon the NHS or has nearest and dearest who do.

The NHS gets a lot of criticism for being a bottomless pit of expenditure that is inefficient and slow to embrace change. Yes, healthcare costs a lot of money especially with our ageing population, but per head we spend a lot less than many other countries: half what the US spends per capita or as a proportion of GDP; our care is universal and our life expectancy is slightly longer. In 2017 the Commonwealth Fund rated the NHS #1 in a comparison of 11 countries.

So the narrative that the NHS is poor value for money is not correct. We are getting a good financial deal. We don’t necessarily need to make it perform better, financially, although there will always be room for improvement. The NHS has a funding crisis because the government wants it to have a funding crisis. It is being deliberately starved of funding so that it fails.

The consequences of selling off the NHS will be that many people are excluded from care they need to stay alive or to maintain a tolerable standard of living. As we see with almost every private sector takeover of what were formerly public services, they strip the assets, run below-par services that just about scrape along, and then when there is any kind of downturn or unexpected event they fold and either beg for bailout or just leave the mess in the hands of the government. Either way, taxpayers pay more for less and make a small group of wealthy people even more wealthy.

We are such mugs here in UK that even other countries have realised that they can bid to take over our public services, provide a low standard of service at a low cost to run, charge a lot to the customer and make a hefty profit. Most of our train operating companies are owned by foreign governments.

The NHS as it is only runs as well as it does because the staff are driven to breaking point with an obscene amount of unpaid overtime and workplace stress.

If you’d like to learn some more about the state of the NHS in the form of an engaging read then I recommend Adam Kay’s book This is Going to Hurt: Secret Diaries of a Junior Doctor. It will make you laugh, it will make you cry and if you’ve a soul it will make you angry. Also it may indelibly sear the phrase “penis degloving injury” into your mind.

Do not accept the premise that the NHS is too expensive.

If the NHS does a poor job (and it sometimes does), understand that underfunding plays a big part.

Privatising any of it will not improve matters in any way, except for a very small number of already wealthy people.

Please think about this when you vote.

Intel may need me to sign an NDA before I can know the capacity of one of their SSDs

Apologies for the slightly clickbaity title! I could not resist. While an Intel employee did tell me this, they are obviously wrong.

Still, I found out some interesting things that I was previously unaware of.

I was thinking of purchasing some “3.84TB” Intel D3-S4610 SSDs for work. I already have some “3.84TB” Samsung SM883s so it would be good if the actual byte capacity of the Intel SSDs were at least as much as the Samsung ones, so that they could be used to replace a failed Samsung SSD.

To those with little tech experience you would think that two things which are described as X TB in capacity would be:

  1. Actually X TB in size, where 1TB = 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 bytes, using powers of ten SI prefixes. Or;
  2. Actually X TiB in size, where 1TiB = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 bytes, using binary prefixes.

…and there was a period of time where this was mostly correct, in that manufacturers would prefer something like the former case, as it results in larger headline numbers.

The thing is, years ago, manufacturers used to pick a capacity that was at least what was advertised (in powers of 10 figures) but it wasn’t standardised.

If you used those drives in a RAID array then it was possible that a replacement—even from the same manufacturer—could be very slightly smaller. That would give you a bad day as you generally need devices that are all the same size. Larger is okay (you’ll waste some), but smaller won’t work.

So for those of us who like me are old, this is something we’re accustomed to checking, and I still thought it was the case. I wanted to find out the exact byte capacity of this Intel SSD. So I tried to ask Intel, in a live support chat.

Edgar (22/02/2021, 13:50:59): Hello. My name is Edgar and I’ll be helping you today.

Me (22/02/2021, 13:51:36): Hi Edgar, I have a simple request. Please could you tell me the exact byte capacity of a SSD-SSDSC2KG038T801 that is a 3.84TB Intel D3-S4610 SSD

Me (22/02/2021, 13:51:47): I need this information for matching capacities in a RAID set

Edgar (22/02/2021, 13:52:07): Hello, thank you for contacting Intel Technical Support. It is going to be my pleasure to help you.

Edgar (22/02/2021, 13:53:05): Allow me a moment to create a ticket for you.

Edgar (22/02/2021, 13:57:26): We have a calculation to get the decimal drive sectors of an SSD because the information you are asking for most probably is going to need a Non-Disclousre Agreement (NDA)

Yeah, an Intel employee told me that I might need to sign an NDA to know the usable capacity of an SSD. This is obviously nonsense. I don’t know whether they misunderstood and thought I was asking about the raw capacity of the flash chips or what.

Me (22/02/2021, 13:58:15): That seems a bit strange. If I buy this drive I can just plug it in and see the capacity in bytes. But if it’s too small then that is a wasted purchase which would be RMA’d

Edgar (22/02/2021, 14:02:48): It is 7,500,000,000

Edgar (22/02/2021, 14:03:17): Because you take the size of the SSD that is 3.84 in TB, in Byte is 3840000000000

Edgar (22/02/2021, 14:03:47): So we divide 3840000000000 / 512 which is the sector size for a total of 7,500,000,000 Bytes

Me (22/02/2021, 14:05:50): you must mean 7,500,000,000 sectors of 512byte, right?

Edgar (22/02/2021, 14:07:45): That is the total sector size, 512 byte

Edgar (22/02/2021, 14:08:12): So the total sector size of the SSD is 7,500,000,000

Me (22/02/2021, 14:08:26): 7,500,000,000 sectors is only 3,750GB so this seems rather unlikely

The reason why this seemed unlikely to me is that I have never seen an Intel or Samsung SSD that was advertised as X.Y TB capacity that did not have a usable capacity of at least X,Y00,000,000,000 bytes. So I would expect a “3.84TB” device to have at least 3,840,000,000,000 bytes of usable capacity.

Edgar was unable to help me further so the support chat was ended. I decided to ask around online to see if anyone actually had one of these devices running and could tell me the capacity.

Peter Corlett responded to me with:

As per IDEMA LBA1-03, the capacity is 1,000,194,048 bytes per marketing gigabyte plus 10,838,016 bytes. A marketing terabyte is 1000 marketing gigabytes.

3840 * 1000194048 + 10838016 = 3840755982336. Presumably your Samsung disk has that capacity, as should that Intel one you’re eyeing up.

My Samsung ones do! And every other SSD I’ve checked obeys this formula, which explains why things have seemed a lot more standard recently. I think this might have been standardised some time around 2014 / 2015. I can’t tell right now because the IDEMA web site is down!

So the interesting and previously unknown to me thing is that storage device sizes are indeed standardised now, albeit not to any sane definition of the units that they use.

What a relief.

Also that Intel live support sadly can’t be relied upon to know basic facts about Intel products. 🙁

“Designer” dog breeds are not mongrels. They’re much worse.

It doesn’t sit well with me when owners of long-recognised breed dogs mock the new “designer” breeds as being mongrels.

“That’s not a cockapoo, it’s just a mongrel!”

Surely all currently recognised breeds were once mongrels until a human being created them and convinced enough other humans to agree that this is a good set of characteristics?

What are designer breeds made from? Dogs with certain characteristics. Who decides they are an official breed or not? Some kennel club.

All of the existing, recognised older breeds were bred for a purpose or function that primarily served human beings and only secondarily served the welfare of the animal itself. That is, these supposedly superior recognised breeds would never have existed if left to natural selection alone because they all have negatives, it’s just a question of degree. And those breeds are kept in existence again by human desires, not through any higher power. A “purebred” dog exists because humans wanted it to, just as a designer breed dog exists because humans wanted it to. Who cares what it’s called?

If someone shows me their new designer breed puppy and wants to call it a cockapoo because it was bred from a cocker spaniel and a poodle, I don’t care. Am I supposed to respect a kennel club and say “that’s not a real thing”? No, it is a real thing, it’s right in front of me.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be sad, because it’s yet another puppy farmed for human pleasure with no regard to its health or future, when there’s tens of thousands of healthy dogs that no one wants already in rescue kennels. Doubly so if the pairing has created something that health-wise is going to have a really hard life. But it’s not a mongrel. In some cases it could dream of being a mongrel because it would have a better life.

The name of the breed isn’t the issue. There are certainly some kennel club recognised breeds that from a welfare point of view just shouldn’t exist as their whole life is a torment, the way certain human-desired traits have been so excessively selected for. A lot of times when the “mongrel” rebuke is brought out, I think it is just something intended to annoy the owners and to convey the idea that a dog should have been rescued, not a puppy farmed. In those cases maybe a new word is needed but I don’t know what that word would be.

I just don’t get the designer breed snobbery though. When it is purely a breed issue or when it’s the owner of one type of established breed owned from birth disparaging another owner of a farmed puppy I feel like it’s really hypocritical. It’s not established vs designer, it’s rescued vs farmed.

Another disappointing btrfs experience

I’ve been using btrfs on my home fileserver for about 4½ years. I am not entirely happy with it and kind of wish I never did it; I will certainly not be introducing it anywhere else. I’m also pretty lazy though, which probably explains why I haven’t ripped it out and replaced it with something else yet.

I’ve had a few problems with it over the years. To be fair I’ve never lost any data; it’s really the availability aspects of it which I feel just aren’t ready yet. When I use multiple storage devices it’s generally to increase availability. I don’t expect device failure to stop me doing what I need to do, at least for small amounts of device failure.

Unfortunately btrfs has consistently not lived up to these expectations. Almost every single-disk failure I’ve had in the past has resulted in an “outage” of some sort. As this is just our data, at home, it may be strange to think of it as an outage, but that’s what it is. Our data became unavailable in some way for some period of time.

This time around, one of the drives started throwing up “Currently unreadable (pending)” and “Offline uncorrectable” sectors a few days ago. That means that there’s areas of the drive that it cannot read. Initially there were just a small number, and a scrub came back clean so that suggested the problem sectors were at that time outside of any filesystem.

In a more critical setting I’d have spare drives available and would just swap them, but for home use I’m usually comfortable with forcing the drive to reallocate these by forcing a write, before ordering a replacement if the problem doesn’t go away. Worst case, I have backups.

After a day or so though, the number of problem sectors was increasing and it was obvious the drive was going to die fairly soon. I ordered a replacement. About 6 hours before the replacement arrived the drive completely stopped responding.

Now, this drive was at the time one of five in the btrfs filesystem, and the filesystem has a raid1 storage policy so there should have been no issue with one device going missing. But apparently there was a problem. btrfs sits spewing the kernel log with errors about lost writes to a device that’s no longer there; the filesystem goes read-only.

The replacement drive arrives, but with the filesystem read-only I can’t add it. I can’t even unmount the filesystem (says it is busy but lsof doesn’t see any users). Nope, I had to reboot the fileserver, at which point the filesystem wouldn’t mount at all because you have to give it the degraded mount option if you want it to mount with any devices missing.

Add the replacement drive, btrfs device remove missing /path/to/fs to kick off a remove of the dead device. Things are at least up and running read-write while this is going on. In fact it’s still going on, because there was 1.2TiB of data on the dead device and reconstructing it is painfully slow. As I write this we’re now about 9 hours in and there’s still about 421GiB to go.

So, it’s not terrible. No data was lost (probably). A short outage due to a required reboot. But it is kind of disappointing and not really how I want to be spending my time just because a single HDD slipped its mortal coil. I am massively thankful that the operating system of that fileserver is still on four other HDDs on ext4+lvm+md and never give me any trouble. Otherwise I’d have to be booting into a rescue OS to fix this sort of thing. When the thing you’re glad of is that you didn’t use a filesystem, that isn’t a great advert for that filesystem.

I should probably try to find some time to play (again) with ZFS-on-Linux. I did actually give it a go last year but got bogged down trying to compare its performance against btrfs and ext4+lvm+md using fio, which proved quite difficult to do, and I moved on to other things.

One of the things that initially attracted me to btrfs is the possibility of using a mish-mash of differently-sized drives. Due to BitFolk constantly replacing hardware I have in my possession plenty of HDDs of differing sizes that are individually perfectly serviceable, but would be awkward to try to match up into identical sizes for conventional RAID arrays. Over the years of this btrfs filesystem it had started out with mostly 250G drives and just before this failure it was 1x 1TB, 3x 2TB and 1x 3TB.

I had thought that ZFS requires every device to be the same capacity (i.e. it would only use the smallest capacity) but I’ve since been informed that ZFS will just use the capacity of the smallest device in the vdev. So assuming mirror vdevs, I’d just need to pair the drives up (or accept that the capacity will be that of the smaller of the two).

That doesn’t seem too onerous at all, when considering the advantages that ZFS would bring. I’m most interested in the self-healing (checksums) and the storage tiering (through using faster devices like SSDs for L2ARC and ZIL). btrfs doesn’t have a good solution for tiering yet, unless you are insane and want to play with bcache(fs).

So, yeah, should stop being lazy and crack on with ZFS again. In my copious free time.

Paranoid, Init

Having marvelled at the er… unique nature of MikeeUSA’s Systemd Blues: Took our thing (Wooo) blues homage to the perils of using systemd, I decided what the world actually needs is something from the metal genre.

So, here’s the lyrics to Paranoid, Init.

Default soon on Debian
This doesn’t help me with my mind
People think I’m insane
Because I am trolling all the time

All day long I fight Red Hat
And uphold UNIX philosophy
Think I’ll lose my mind
If I can’t use sysvinit on jessie

Can you help me
Terrorise pid 1?
Oh yeah!

Tried to show the committee
That things were wrong with this design
They can’t see Poettering’s plan in this
They must be blind

Some sick joke I could just cry
GNOME needs logind API
QR codes gave me a feel
Then binary logs just broke the deal

And so as you hear these words
Telling you now of my state
Can’t log off and enjoy life
I’ve another sock puppet to create

Currently not possible

On Thursday 9th, after weeks of low-level frustration at having to press “close” on every login, I sent a complaint to Barclays asking them to stop asking me on every single login to switch to paperless statements with a dialog box that has only two options:

Switch to paperless statements

This morning they replied:

Please be advised that it is currently not possible for us to remove the switch to paperless statements advert.

So, uh, I suppose if you’re a web developer who thinks that it’s acceptable to ask a question on every login and not supply any means for the user to say, “stop asking me this question”, there is still a job for you in the banking industry. No one there will at any point tell you that this is awful user experience. They will probably just tell you, “good job”, from their jacuzzi full of cash that they got from charging people £5.80 a month to have a bank account, of which £0.30 is for posting a bank statement.

Meanwhile, on another part of their site, I attempt to tell them to send me letters by email not post, but the web site does not allow me to because it thinks I do not have an email address set. Even though the same screen shows my set email address which has been set for years.

Go home Barclays, you're drunk

After light mocking on Twitter they asked me to try using a different browser, before completely misunderstanding what I was talking about, at which point I gave up.

On attempting to become a customer of Metro Bank

On the morning of Saturday 12th April 2014 I visited the Kingston Upon Thames store of Metro Bank in an attempt to open a current account.

The store was open — they are open 7 days a week — but largely empty. There was a single member of staff visible, sat down at a desk with a customer.

I walked up to a deserted front desk and heard footsteps behind me. I turned to be greeted by that same member of staff who had obviously spotted I was looking a bit lost and come to greet me. He apologised that no one had greeted me, introduced himself, asked my name and what he could help me with. After explaining that I wanted to open a current account he said that someone would be with me very soon.

Within a few seconds another member of staff greeted me and asked me to come over to her desk. So far so good.

As she started to take my details I could see she was having problems with her computer. She kept saying it was so slow and made various other inaudible curses under her breath. She took my passport and said she was going to scan it, but from what I could see she merely photcopied it. Having no joy with her computer she said that she would fill in paper forms and proceeded to ask me for all of my details, writing them down on the forms. Her writing was probably neater than mine but this kind of dictation was rather tedious and to be quite honest I’d rather have done it myself.

This process took at least half an hour. I was rather disappointed as all their marketing boasts of same day quick online setup, get your bank details and debit card same day and so on.

Finally she went back to her computer, and then said, “oh dear, it’s come back saying it needs head office approval, so we won’t be able to open this right now. Would you be available to come back later today?”

“No, I’m busy for the rest of the day. To be honest I was expecting all this to be done online as I’m not really into visiting banks even if they are open 7 days a week…”

“Oh that’s alright, once it’s sorted out we should be able to post all the things to you.”

“Right.”

“This hardly ever happens. I don’t know why it’s happened. Even if I knew I wouldn’t be able to tell you. It’s rare but I have to wait for head office to approve the account.”

As she went off to sort something else out I overheard the conversation between the customer and staff member on the next table. He was telling the customer how his savings account couldn’t be opened today because it needed head office approval and it was very rare that this would happen.

I left feeling I had not achieved very much, but hopeful that it might get sorted out soon. It wasn’t a very encouraging start to my relationship with Metro Bank.

It’s now Tuesday 15th April, three days after my application was made or two working days, and I haven’t had any further communication from Metro Bank so I have no idea if my account is ever going to be opened. I don’t really have any motivation to chase them up. If I don’t hear soon then I’ll just go somewhere else.

I suppose in theory a bank branch that is open 7 days a week might be useful for technophobes who don’t use the Internet, but if the bank’s systems don’t work then all you’ve achieved is to have a large high street box full of people employed to tell you that everything is broken. Until 8pm seven days a week.

Update 2014-04-15 15:30: After contact on twitter, the Local Director of the Kingston branch called me to apologise and assure me that he is looking into the matter.

About 15 minutes later he called back to explain, roughly:

The reason the account was not approved on the day is that I’ve only been in my current address for 7 months, so none of the proofs of address would have been accepted. Under normal circumstances it is apparently possible to open an account with just a passport. If not then the head office approval or rejection should happen within 24 hours, but their systems are running a bit slowly. Someone should have called me to let me know this, but this did not happen. Apparently approval did in fact come through today – I am told someone was due to call me today with the news that my account has been opened. I should receive the card and cheque book tomorrow.

I’m glad this was so quickly resolved. I’m looking forward to using my account and hopefully everything will be smoother now.

If you think suicide is weak or shameful, you just don’t understand

Recently, someone fairly well known in certain circles committed suicide. People commit suicide all the time of course, but this person could fairly be described as a form of genius, a polymath, hero to many. Since their sphere of influence was (is!) strongly Internet-based, the net has been alive for weeks with people feeling the need to comment upon it.

I haven’t made a comment upon it because I didn’t know this person. I knew of them, of many of their great works and deeds and philosophies. Didn’t agree with some of them, but there you go. Anyone who knew anything about this person knows that the world is much worse off to not have them in it, so no one needs to hear that from me. Speaking about their circumstances specifically though is something I still don’t feel comfortable about. It feels to me a bit too much like some sort of leveraging of grief in order to just make statements about oneself.

Yes, I do realise that by just saying that stuff I have passed comment and now you all know something of my politics and beliefs so I’m really cool for how much I care right? Well, I couldn’t avoid it as otherwise it ends up coming across like, “I don’t care that they died; I didn’t know them.”

This particular incident though, being fodder for Internet discussion by persons not closely emotionally tied to the deceased, has lead to me now seeing quite a few people expressing views like, “don’t hero-worship someone who killed themselves, they’re weak and selfish.” Or, “I’m so disappointed in them that they felt this was necessary.” Like, publicly expressing them, for the world to see. Some influential people.

I still, weeks later, can’t quite put into words how much I am disgusted with these sorts of comments, or even exactly why I am. This is my best attempt so far and it’s not really going very well is it?

This is not about the individual concerned; these are views that some people express whenever there is a suicide that is notable enough to be a topic of discussion, but emotionally remote enough from them that they feel able to “speak their minds.”

There is just some shocking level of arrogance involved when you say that someone was weak, selfish, acted shamefully, disappointed you (YOU, for fuck’s sake!) by ending their own life.

I don’t entirely (thankfully) know what goes through someone’s mind when they decide to end it all but I am pretty sure that they are in such a bad place that any thought of what other people will think has long ago ceased to have any positive effect and probably has the opposite instead.

I don’t know how to stop people killing themselves through despair. I don’t know what the best strategies are. But please just stop acting like suicidal people feel they have some sort of choice, that if they would just not let everyone down so much it would go better for them. I can’t begin to imagine that helps.

Their action must have come from a place where they truly believe no choice exists, and if you can’t sympathise with that then please at least maintain a respectful silence.

Firefox, Ubuntu and middlemouse.contentLoadURL

I use Firefox web browser, currently on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. For many years I have set the config option middlemouse.contentLoadURL to true so that middle clicking anywhere in the page (that does not accept input) will load the URL that is in my clipboard.

After restarting my web browser somewhere near the end of January 2012 I found my Firefox 3.x had been upgraded to Firefox 9.x. Also the middle click behaviour no longer worked.

Perusing about:config showed that the option had been set to false again. I set it back to true but on restart of the browser it was set back to false. A bit of searching about found various suggestions about forcing it in my user.js file, but none of those worked either.

Finally, in desperation, I did a search of every file beneath /usr for the string “middlemouse”. Lo and behold:

/usr/lib/firefox-9.0.1/extensions/ubufox@ubuntu.com/defaults/preferences/ubuntu-mods.js

…
pref("middlemouse.contentLoadURL", false); //setting to false disables pasting urls on to the page
…

Commenting this line out once more allowed me to change the setting myself.

It seems this this override was discussed by Ubuntu as far back as 2004, but it only became something that I could not override upon the upgrade to Firefox 9.

I reported a bug about this, and one of the comments seems to suggest that the method Ubuntu uses to change these settings has changed because they were breaking Firefox Sync, and that this outcome (overriding middlemouse.contentLoadURL) is not as bad as breaking Firefox Sync.

Even so, I would suggest that this outcome is very confusing for people and that as middlemouse.contentLoadURL is a popular setting which is easy to change, it should not be overridden in some obscure file.

As of the recent upgrade to Firefox 11, the file with the override in it has now moved to /usr/share/xul-ext/ubufox/defaults/preferences/ubuntu-mods.js.

Dear System Integrators, a few words about screwing

Right, System Integrators – those companies that buy components from Supermicro et al and build you a server out of them. You guys seem to have a bit of a fascination with screwing. Screwing things in as tight as you can. Please stop.

It’s 100% true that vibration of components like hard disks is bad. numerous studies have been done that prove that vibration causes performance problems as drives need to do more corrective work.

However, this does not mean that you have to screw in the drives to the caddies to the limit of what is physically possible. They just need to be tightened until a little force won’t tighten them any more.

When you supply me with a server that’s got four super-tightened screws for each drive in it, and I deploy that server, chances are that one of the first things that will break in that server is one of the disk drives.

During the years those screws have been there they haven’t got any looser. It’s likely that if you tightened them all to the limit of your strength and tools, by now the force required to unscrew them will be less than the force required to deform the screw head. Like this:

Stripped screw heads in a drive caddy

Close-up of a stripped screw head

No, this is not an issue of using the wrong driver head. Yes, you will strip a screw if you use the wrong driver head. That’s why I carry this stuff every time I go to a datacentre:

A selection of screwdrivers for your pleasure

There’s two exactly correct drivers in there, and several that should also work anyway despite being a little bit off. I have never had a problem unscrewing any screw that I originally put in. Probably because I don’t tighten them like I am some sort of lunatic. I can even unscrew them around a corner with the offline driver. Oh yeah baby. So far nothing I have screwed in with merely normal force has fallen apart.

And this is not an isolated occurrence! Nearly all of you seem to do this with every screw, everywhere. Stop it!

The drive in that caddy is a dead one, and luckily I had a spare caddy with me for the replacement drive to go in, otherwise I too would have been screwed beyond the limits of my endurance.

So, now I’ve got to drill those out just to get this caddy back to being useful again. Or more likely find someone else to drill it out for me as I don’t trust myself with power tools really.

ffffuuuuu