Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Uvix's commentslogin

DDR4 manufacturing is being spun down due to lack of demand. The prices on it would be going up regardless of what's happening with DDR5.

Certainly no more than three tiers.

"Traditional" three-tier, where you have a web server talking to an application server talking to a database server, seems like overkill; I'd get rid of the separate application tier.

If your tiers are browser, web API server, database: then three tiers still makes sense.


Also ebooks and software installers, but those and movies/music are my main categories.

Cloud costs would be... exorbitant. 19 TB and I'm nowhere near done ripping my movies. Dropbox would be $96/month, Backblaze $114/month, and OneDrive won't let me buy that much capacity.


And you can buy those disks for… $300 or $400 apiece, I guess? A onetime purchase.

I'm hosting a couple of apps in Docker on mine. (Pihole, Jellyfin, Audiobookshelf, and Bitwarden.)

I wouldn't call TrueNAS, or anything where you're installing an OS on custom hardware, "turn-key". That's saved for the Synologys and UGREENs and Ubiquitis of the world.

You can purchase TrueNAS hardware + Software pre-configured. It is not clear what the individual you were responding to was doing, but I have personally experienced many off the shelf, supposedly ready to go IT solutions that require as much tweaking and admin time as a custom solution. But different folks have different skill sets, too.

The problem with Synology type NAS is that they still treat you like a product. If you go this way, you have to accept the limitations. Or you have to do everything yourself.

But not necessarily in the right form factor. My generalist PC build is a laptop, my gaming machine is tucked away under the TV and doesn't have a mouse or keyboard.

Valve doesn't disclose ahead of purchase whether a title has Steam DRM or not. So even if publishers don't take the option, I have no way to know that. Which means the option effectively doesn't exist.


The publisher could certainly mention it in their product blurb or in the additional notes under system requirements, if they thought to or thought the market would care.


No, because they'd still be paying less/more than people paying with credit cards, debit cards, or checks.


Round them all. Why is this so difficult?


Retailers will reject ever rounding down because they lose money, and customers will reject ever rounding up because they lose money.


Completely different discussion. Regardless, you skipped explaining why these options worked for Canadian Penny (just 12 years ago) at a time when their penny had more buying power than the current US penny, yet the exact same thing cannot ever possibly work for the US penny.

Things don't just happen to cost *.99 today either, the market just has wiggle room for bullshit about values. With inflation, the coinage that corresponds to also inflates over time. The penny is long past its time.

Furthermore:

> Rounding to the closest nickel will cost consumers about $6 million a year, according to a July study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. That is fairly modest, coming to about five cents each across 133 million American households.

The US lost ~$85 million minting pennies in 2024 because they cost more to make than they are worth. That's over a 10x savings, not a loss. 5 cents is also less than 0.00006% of median household income in 2024.

If people were actually that worried we'd have had laws about credit card transaction fees decades ago.


The SNAP rules don't require equal treatment with people who pay with credit cards, debit cards, or checks, only with people who pay cash. Setting aside the politicized USDA public communications during the shutdown, here's the legally binding regulatory text:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/s...

"Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons."


Yes, the article does list multiple root causes, including that one.


CAs have to follow the baseline rules set by Google and Mozilla regarding incident response timelines. If they gave you more time, the browsers would drop them as a supported CA.


The CAs have to follow the baseline rules set by the CA/Browser Forum which CAs are voting members of.

Mark my words, some day soon an enterprising politician will notice the CA system can be drawn into trade sanctions against the enemy of the day....


The BRs already have a deliberate carve out where a CA can notify that their government requires them to break the rules and how they'll do that, and then the browsers, on behalf of relying parties can take whatever action they deem appropriate.

If you're required to (or choose to) not tell us about it, because of active monitoring when we notice it's likely your CA will be distrusted for not telling us, this is easier because there's a mechanism to tell us about it - same way that there's a way to officially notify the US that you're a spy, so, when you don't (because duh you're a spy) you're screwed 'cos you didn't follow the rules.

The tech centralization under the US government does mean there's a vulnerability on the browser side, but I wouldn't speculate about how long that would last if there's a big problem.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: