Cuz health insurance and health care are both very expensive fields, and they’re in opposition to each other, so they both tend towards monopoly.
And from the consumer’s perspective:
Those additional requests will reuse the existing connection, so they’ll have more bandwidth at that point.
Feels more like a home manager thing to me
14kB club: “Amateurs!!!”
https://dev.to/shadowfaxrodeo/why-your-website-should-be-under-14kb-in-size-398n
a
14kBpage can load much faster than a15kBpage — maybe612msfaster — while the difference between a15kBand a16kBpage is trivial.This is because of the TCP slow start algorithm. This article will cover what that is, how it works, and why you should care.
Wait. Are yall’s polling places libraries, not churches?
Better symbol than Pelosi
The original source was much more sensible.
The comparison makes sense for evaluating whether you’re over-invested in something. Like, if Nvidia suddenly poofed out of existence, would it seriously be worth 16% of everything the whole country makes in a year to get it back?
Owning a car that’s worth 16% of your yearly income sounds reasonable, no matter what your actual income is. A Pokemon card collection that’s 16% of your income is probably too risky, no matter what your actual income is.
Also, GDP is a decent scale to use for charting investment in a productivity tool, because if GDP ramped up at the same time as investment then it looks less like a bubble, even if they both ramp up quickly.
But that’s not what we see. We see a sudden and volatile shift, nothing like the normal pattern before the hype.
Just a reminder that literally every dollar the treasury disburses is spent into existence.
It is impossible for the federal government to run out of money, just like it’s impossible for a scorekeeper to run out of points.
So when they say they don’t have the money — an impossible situation — what they mean is they don’t want to have the money.
This is the power of the deficit myth. Money that you don’t want to spend has to “come from somewhere”. Yet all of the money you do want to spend never suffers that problem.
I think maybe the biggest conceptual mistake in computer science was calling them “tests”.
That word has all sorts of incorrect connotations to it:
You get this notion of running off to apply a ruler and a level to some structure that’s already built, adding notes to a clipboard about what’s wrong with it.
You should think of it as a pencil and paper — a place where you can be abstract, not worry about the nitty-gritty details (unless you want to), and focus on what would be right about an implementation that adheres to this design.
Like “I don’t care how it does it, but if you unmount and remount this component it should show the previous state without waiting for an HTTP request”.
Very different mindset from “Okay, I implemented this caching system, now I’m gonna write tests to see if there are any off-by-one errors when retrieving indexed data”.
I think that, very often, writing tests after the impl is worse than not writing tests at all. Cuz unless you’re some sort of wizard, you probably didn’t write the impl with enough flexibility for your tests to be flexible too. So you end up with brittle tests that break for bad reasons and reproduce all of the same assumptions that the impl has.
You spent extra time on the task, and the result is that when you have to come back and change the impl you’ll have to spend extra time changing the tests too. Instead of the tests helping you write the code faster in the first place, and helping you limit your tests to only what you actually care about keeping the same long-term.
No apps, no code, just intent and execution.
So the only problems you’re left with are:
Problems which… code is much better than English at handling.
And always will be.
Almost like there’s a reason code exists other than just “Idk let’s make it hard so normies can’t do it mwahaha”.
If you wrote a book with a villain as openly corrupt as Trump, it would be panned as unrealistic.
Now I kinda want a story where the villain commits all of Trump’s crimes and keeps getting away with it, but has absolutely nobody cheering for him.
It would feel like those videos of sitcoms with the laugh tracks removed. Just an uneasy moment of tension after every action, like they’re in a completely different reality.
Violation of the unauthorized access provision of the CFAA, or the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA
We do not disclose or publicize the specific capabilities of our technology. This practice is central to our security strategy, as revealing such details could provide potential criminals or malicious actors with an unintended advantage.
I was under the impression it was illegal to use exploits for purposes other than responsible disclosure?
Jimmy Wales: Libertarian that ended up creating perhaps the most successful collectivist project of all time.
It’s the problem, but also the strength. That fragmentation allows room to experiment.
It also puts pressure on the underlying protocols/specs to be air-tight. If you have just one implementation to support, you can do whatever. If you have to support 15, all with different goals and constraints, you gotta be pretty damn careful.
So in the end, we get foundational systems that are able to evolve over time instead of needing a breaking-change, ground-up rewrite every 2 years.
This is basically what the Luddites were fighting against:
A world where labor has no opportunity to develop skills or use them, no authority over the machinery which dictates the nature of what is made and how, chasing fewer and fewer jobs for less and less pay.
Their solution was to take sledgehammers to the factories. The owners, of course, hired thugs to shoot them. And the politicians ruled that the machines were sort of the property of the crown, and therefore destruction of these machines should be punishable by public execution.
Funny enough, data centers today are considered strategic assets under the protection of DHS. Which is a fancy way of saying: still owned by the crown, still gonna shoot you if you try to negotiate via sledgehammer.
Yeah, they cherry-pick that average income is up vs previous generations, adjusted for inflation.
Okay, but… cost of living has gone up.
Not just for the things that existed 40 years ago, but also from the new things that are necessary for maintaining a career, like broadband internet and a smartphone.
Needing a fucking subscription for your toaster or hair dryer or stairs or whatever. Having to tip your landlord.
They had a guy in the article that owes 200k in student loans! This is not apples-to-apples.
And also, so what if it’s up in average? Inequality is the worst it’s ever been. They barely sneak an asterisk in to address that, too.
It is capitalism we’re experiencing, but it’s treating capitalism as the only tool in the toolbox and structuring an entire culture around it.
Markets work great for some things. Not everything. Currency works great for some things. Not everything.
Anonymous transferrable shares of ownership, and all of the abstract financial instruments that spin out of that one simple mechanism… are honestly not very good for many things at all, but they’ve become the primary assets that our economy optimizes for.
To add to the other replies: This is what AI is for. Not to replace labor, but to enhance the ruling class’ ability to exploit labor.
As a convenient side effect: If you use AI to spam people with bug reports, you’re basically DDoSing them… unless they then decide to use AI to help triage the avalanche. And wouldn’t you know it, Google just happens to sell AI to help you solve this problem they made for you!
“Nice FOSS project you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”
And also also: If FOSS in general turns into a ghost town… where are you gonna turn to get that boilerplate code you need to do a common task? That’s right, AI baby! All roads lead to boiling the Great Lakes so Nvidia can pay itself back.