rekabis

I see this as an episode about humans being… human. That despite significant advances in human civilization towards a socialist utopia, there is still greed and a lust for power in humanity, and that strong steps still need to be taken to blunt those evils.

Picard decloaking in front of the Romulans may not have translated well to Romulan mores, but it’s an attempt to re-establish trust, a way of saying, “we don’t tolerate shit like this, and here is us exposing this malfeasance to prove our dedication to being honest.”

I mean, the Romulans will most certainly assume the worst, because they will project onto humans that which they are most likely to do themselves. But at least Picard is holding true to what the Federation stands for, which means airing dirty laundry such that the Federation can learn from it.

And I self-host precisely because of the money I save using surplussed hardware. I have a symmetrical 1Gb SOHO fibre connection from my ISP, so I can host whatever the hell I want, I just need to stand it up. And a beefy older system with oodles of RAM is perfect for spinning up VMs of various platforms for various tasks. This saves me craploads of money over even a single VM on cloud platforms like Vultr. Plus, even if I were to support a “heavy” service sufficiently in demand to warrant its own iron, it still costs me less than a year’s worth of hosting to obtain a decent platform for that service to run on all by it’s lonesome.

My only cloud costs end up being those services which are distributed for redundancy and geographical distance, such as DNS and caching CDNs.

Follow the money. Some crony, somewhere in Alberta’s system, profited wildly.

This one is identical to the pic, and comes in various different sizes: https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Dihydrogen-Monoxide-by-balletdancercb/85791225.EJUG5

Holy shit, those prices. Like, I wouldn’t be able to afford any package at even 10% the going rate.

Anything available for the lone operator running a handful of Internet-addressable servers behind a single symmetrical SOHO connection? As in, anything for the other 95% of us that don’t have literal mountains of cash to burn?

Yes, but in many to most cases, no.

People from suppressed cultures/families who suddenly experience freedom have a tendency to go after anything that spits in the face of their former repression, purely for that freedom. As in, they are motivated by the freedom to choose, and not by whether or not they actually like the act in question.

Which is why the former is much more psychologically healthier. It rarely generates regret, whereas the latter has the potential to generate regret once they “get [it] worked out of their system” and realize that they don’t like the act itself - and may actually hate it or how it’s changed them - and have only been attracted to their ability to choose it or its ability to be offensive in the context of their prior repression.

the key is to simply seed all of your content for as long as you have it in your collection.

Tell that to TheGeeks. If you aren’t actively uploading - not just sitting there sharing, but actively sending data to anyone else - you’ll eventually be warned, then banned.

Back when I was trying to use their site, they had only one system: strict 1 ratio on a time limit. If you couldn’t maintain a 1+ ratio, and achieve it within a very limited amount of time, it didn’t matter what you grabbed or how long you shared back out, you got banned. At the time they had no other way to get ratio other than sharing back out - no freeleech, nothing. Which meant if you were wanting any content more than 2-3 HOURS old, you were looking at a ratio shortfall because there was no way to make up that ratio you were losing by downloading that content. There were simply too few peers after you to overcome the masses of seeders ahead of you satisfying peers.

It was absolutely brutal, which is why I now refuse to deal with any sites with that rule (1+ ratio with time limit) even if they have other ways (freeleech, etc.) to mitigate it. Like, f**k those sites. I’ve been seeding some torrents for close to 15 years, I have no problem letting shit remain resident in my client. So sites like MyAnonamouse it’s going to have to remain.

If you are talking about sites that have a strict, non-negotiable seeding ratio requirement, it is impossible. Your only real long-term option is to write a script that will grab everything that gets uploaded on a 30-second cadence, and then aggressively super-seed that content back out. And this is regardless of what it is - this script runs 24/7, doing about 2,880 hits on the website a day for new content. Still, even with the script it will be difficult to have your overall ratio exceed more than about 1.5-2, and you may still get banned for individual seeds that never exceed 1 because no-one is very interested in them.

I have tried to use sites that have strict ratio minimums, and long-term success is impossible without an edge like the script I mentioned. It’s why I now work with sites - like myanonamouse - that have minimum seeding times for everything you grab, regardless if anyone else needs it. They tend to be far less stressful and user-hostile.

We have high technology because we don’t have anything else to leverage.

I suspect a world with strong magic is liable to leverage that to the exclusion of technology.

A now-ended iseki story on Reddit’s HFY subreddit called “Wait, is this just GATE?” Asks the question of what would happen if a universe of only technology and no magic (ours) made contact with a universe of pretty much only magic and almost no technology beyond that found in the Middle Ages. It contains some tropes (used mainly as comedic relief or irony) and plenty of references to current magical-universe plot elements from games and novels, but is a surprisingly fresh and compelling examination of the cross-universe idea.

Invest the money, and use the after-inflation income to do the work.

That way, you have a constant and near-permanent resource stream with which to do the work. It’s only if the markets crash as a whole that you need to worry, and nothing says you cannot build additional revenue streams along side that wealth.

I would start with the most pressing issues for Canada - housing, and the homeless crisis that arises from shitty wages combined with exploding costs. Buy large tracts of land within each city, then economically force the cities to approve large arcologies that blend residential with business spaces. Make it super-attractive for even the wealthy to want to rent homes there, but turn around and then make assisted living units available in those same areas to low-income families and homeless people who want to get off the street. Have those communities to be tightly integrated across all social strata, so everyone benefits. Plus, actual social support that helps those traumatized by homelessness to get their lives together and return to being contributing members of society.

For the vast majority of flip phones currently available on the market, if they’re not running some version of KiaOS, they’re running stock Android - with all the Google spying that entails - under the hood.

• San Francisco
• New York
• Literally any other city with rent control

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

New research examining how rent control affects tenants and housing markets offers insight into how rent control affects markets. While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.

Over the long term, rent control has never seen more positive benefits than negative ones, regardless of city.

Rent controlled properties create substantial negative externalities on the nearby housing market, lowering the amenity value of these neighborhoods and making them less desirable places to live.

https://iea.org.uk/media/rent-controls-do-far-more-harm-than-good-comprehensive-review-finds/

• However, 14 out of 17 studies found that rent control leads to higher rents in the uncontrolled sector.
• 12 out of 16 studies found negative effects on housing supply, while 11 out of 16 studies found negative impacts on new construction.
• 15 out of 20 studies found rent control leads to reduced housing quality and maintenance.
• 25 out of 26 studies found rent control reduces residential mobility.
• All 14 studies examining the issue found rent control leads to misallocation of housing.

https://financialpost.com/real-estate/rent-controls-hurt-rental-supply

We reviewed the studies cited by the author and found they all unequivocally demonstrated that rent controls contribute to a slowdown in rental supply, thus hurting the very people that rental advocates intend to help.

[…]

We were again surprised to discover that the IJHP paper painted a completely different picture. The authors said “more restrictive rental market legislation generally has a negative impact on both new housing construction and residential investment.” They concluded that the “received wisdom among economists of a negative construction and investment effect of rent controls seems to hold.”

https://capx.co/rent-controls-never-never-work

The issue with rent controls is not that they are novel or radical. The issue with them is just that every time they are tried, the results are exactly what the Economics 101 textbook would predict. They lead to a decline in the supply of rental properties, a decline in housebuilding rates, a slowdown in tenant mobility, a misallocation of existing properties, and a decline in the quality of rental housing.

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/does-rent-control-work

This study also sheds light on an important behavioural response to rent control by owners of rental properties: landlords substituted to other types of real estate (such as properties exempt from rent control). This lowered the housing supply and shifted it towards less affordable types of housing, leading to rents rising at an even higher rate.

This finding is largely consistent with the predictions of basic microeconomic models: rent controls lower the price of housing and at this lower price less housing is offered (Glaeser and Luttmer, 2003). Housing quality is also reduced as landlords can no longer make up losses from renovating properties by raising rents (Sims, 2007).

Reality doesn’t give two shits about ideology, it cares only about facts.