Seagate’s error rate values (IDs 1, 7, and 195) are busted. Not in that they’re wrong or anything, but that they’re misleading to people who don’t know exactly how to read them.

ALL of those are actually reporting zero errors. This calculator can confirm it for you: https://s.i.wtf/

Edit: As for the first image, I don’t see any attributes in #2 which match with it. It’s possible there is an issue with the drive, but it could also be something to do with the cable. I can’t tell with any confidence.

Edit Edit: I compared the values to my own Seagates and skimmed a manual. While I can’t say for sure what the error reported is in relation to, it is absolutely not to be ignored. If your return period ends very soon, stop here and just return it. If you have plenty of time, you may optionally investigate further to build a stronger case that the drive is a dud. My method is to run a test for bad blocks using this alternative method (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Badblocks#Alternatives), but the smart self-test listed would probably also spit errors if there are issues. If either fail, you have absolute proof the drive is a dud to send alongside the refund.

No testing/proof should be required to receive your refund, but if you can prove it’s a dud, you may just stop it from getting repacked and resold.

I currently (until I eventually get around to setting up a jump sever) use this exact setup. This is because CF tunnel is free, easy, and bypasses any ISP-level tomfoolery that blocks port forwarding, which the last being the most crucial to me.

I will eventually get around to setting up my own equivalent tunnel, however that’s not free and not as easy as CF tunnel.

TLDR pls.

Firefox (well, librewolf, but forks are a matter of personal preference).

Chrome (Ungoogled chromium) is used as a fallback for the occasional site that doesn’t work with my restrictive FF configuration.

Both have uBlock, though they’re configured differently to suit their individual purposes.