belt-and-suspenders

It's a belt-and-suspenders approach that ensures that human error won't cause your system services to become unavailable.

It's possible as a belt-and-suspenders maneuver, but this person just doesn't strike me as a likely target.

It's only belt-and-suspenders redundant to the extent the difficulty of cracking the honeychecker server is independent of the regular login server.

That is a belt-and-suspenders approach to backups, but sure, it's a little safer.

But it took a while for the belt-and-suspenders approach to become popular, and historically people seemed comfortable enough with their finger on the trigger.

Syncthing has some versioning support, but I decided to use bup instead for belt-and-suspenders.

This protects lower-value stuff and/or is belt-and-suspenders.

In an environment where bandwidth utilization costs money I think it's a good belt-and-suspenders approach, regardless of the expected behavior of the clients, to enforce policy at the choke point between expensive and not-expensive.

Anthropic is uniquely interested in introducing itself as an external enforcer of US law, a sort of belt-and-suspenders approach, where the Department is not only subject to operate under the constitution and the laws from the legislative branch, but also subject to anthropics interpretation of whether they are operating under the constitution and the laws from the legislative branch.

I'm a belt-and-suspenders gal:) But I'm really curious - if you can talk about it, that is - why devs push on average almost 4 changes per day & dev, but a review takes 2 days roundtrip.

Is it beneficial to the public to mark facebook down for denying inmates access, when presumably this is just belt-and-suspenders on top of physical control of the inmates, while not carefully exploring the other kinds of censorship they and their competitors in the pseudo-public-forum business engage in?