Apart from cities with crazy density, you underestimate how much solar we could put in the city outskirts, and it would be fine. We have already the power lines anyway to bring electricity from power plants that are far from those apartments you mention.
You would have to either cut forrest and trees or remove farm fields. I'm looking at my home town and I really don't see any barren land around many cities in Poland. I would rather they use those city outskirts land for new real estate that is lacking to deflate the bubble.
Building roofs, parking lots, streets, rail tracks, etc.. are all spaces that could have a canopy installed overhead and solar panels providing power and shading. As solar panels continue to lower in cost the sides of buildings, fences, etc.. There are lots of opportunities to install solar panels in a crowded city.
maintaining such infrastructure would be really costly: installing extra canopy, cleaning, removing snow (not easily accessible), extra inverters. I think solar only make sense if it's installed as solar farm (easy to maintain by one company) or in residential houses (owner maintain) or commercial units (owner maintain it). Solar prices went down but cost of installation and maintaining not much - this is the reason why many people in my family didn't buy it since it's still big investment and maintenance burden currently not worth the effort unless you are building new house.
- 100% guarantee that the data I care about will still be there.
- Costs. Scaling to a few TB is already quite expensive. Some stuff i still back to the cloud, but only the most important of data (pictures of my son)
## Use Case
- Storage
- VMs/Docker/Apps: Home Assistant, Photos app (Immich, Synology Photos, etc.), and some other small stuff like that
## Performance
Running a few VMs/Docker image requires some power, but not a lot. I like that I can choose how much.
## Storage
I had for a long time a 2-bay NAS and upgraded the drives. I just built a DYI NAS and I got a Massive ATX case which supports 11-bay. Why? Because buying a drive is cheaper than replacing drives. Having an ATX case I can still run it with 2 bays, and I still have a computer case If i change my mind.
Ideal storage is a mix of HDD (WD RED, so optimized to run 24/7), SSD and NVME. Each of them is useful for something (HDD for longer term storage, as they are cheaper per gb), SSD and NVME for apps usage and caches
## OS
I was using Synology DSM, and now I went for Unraid. I'm curious to see where HexOS goes in the next few years.
but that's the proposed change, that their Plus lineup which is generally targeted for SMB/SOHO/enthusiast market, will be working only with their drives
Do you really think that being remote is "staying home with the kids"? You're physically in the same building as them, but either you're not really working, or your kids don't actually need an adult to be there because they are grown up anyway, so no childcare is needed because they go to school.
A honest question here from outside of the Swift world: why does it matter?
I'm a Clojure developer, have been exclusively one for the last 10 years and have no intention of changing anytime soon (in other words, I don't care/follow closely what the majority of development world is and what the trends are).
A few years ago we had "Open Source is Not About You" [1] by Rich Hickey, basically pushing back that the creator(s) of Open Source don't owe anything back to the community. That piece has aged well for me: now I understand that something is what it is, not what I wish it was. And more importantly, the goal of open source isn't to be liked or used by everybody. It's a thing put out by its creator for others to use, and that includes Apple.
So really, why does the governance matter so much? If you don't agree with something, why not fork it and make it like you want it?
If pieces got bumped into a higher apogee wouldn't their orbit end up with a lower perigee as well? If so I think that might actually be better for deorbiting quickly
