Dead Comment
Just a short search:
https://www.lotharschulz.info/2021/05/11/macos-setup-automat...
It's incredibly freeing to be able to dump your remote backups wherever you have space. Right now, the best for me is to send them to a virtual Linux box where I have enough space left.
It supports Amazon Drive, AWS, Backblaze B2, Dropbox, Filebase, Google Cloud, Google Drive, OneDrive, SFTP, SharePoint, Storj, Wasabi, network share or some other random S3-compatible server.
It's a native, let me repeat that, NATIVE Mac app and behaves exactly like one. Incredibly satisfying. Unlike Time Machine, it'll tell you what went right and what went wrong. I have a lifetime license.
For my data backups, I use restic. Big advantage is, that I can read my backups even when I don't have a macOS system present (e.g. my only macOS system had a hardware issue and my Time Machine Backup was pretty much useless until I got a new one).
I know, this solution is not for everybody, but Time Machine corrupted my backups more than 5 times now and it feels so slow compared to restic, that I don't even think about retrying it after a new macOS release any more - even if my solution is a bit more work to do.
I use brew but even with brew and brew cask, I find there's plenty of GUI apps that require manual installation, which will also have their own config spread out in various places, plus whatever CLI or background stuff I've installed myself (mostly hidden files/directories in my home folder so probably easier), system settings, etc. I don't know how I'd reasonably automate a restore of all of that stuff without having a Time Machine-style backup (essentially a disk image).
[1] Though I believe that aircraft manufacturers should require some minimal level of comfort on planes they make.
Leaders of that time knew they had to start with the grandest project before cascading for a full range of smaller products; whereas leaders today roll out an MVP and try to grow from there.
It truly was another epoch, the epoch of mass amounts of money and resources, not little optimizations.
So by the time the 747 was flying with airlines, they already had the 707, 727 and 737 flying.
As long as you have comms with the trains around, it's clearly possible to safely go less than the braking distance, as long as you can be sure of the behaviour of the train ahead, even in the case of an equipment failure (ie. in case of a power failure, it will not slam the brakes on, but decelerate at X m/s^2).