verkada (a building access systems company), had multiple incidents of stalking of employees by other employees, using their own installation in their own hq
You need to prove to us that modesty is an absolute quality. Reasonable people would agree that that is a bit extreme ("immodest") and that modesty is relative. (Try cheap instead of modest to see how this works.)
> There's no way in which a $6 million dollar house is "modest".
Relative to his wealth bracket he is being modest but not cheap.
I'm reasonable and I say it is. You are looking at a number, I'm looking at possessions. For example, he could have bought the entire building but he is sharing it with two other owners. A modest man.
> Relative to his wealth bracket he is being modest but not cheap.
That's moving the goalposts. No one said anything about "relative to his wealth bracket".
And I don't think I have ever heard anyone using a term like "modest house" in proportion to someone's wealth. House-modesty is something people generally use to mean "when compared with other houses in the region".
I would argue that a $1mil manhattan 1br isn't modest. You know, you can start to split hairs what modest means. Is that a modest living space? Sure. Is the privilege of living in manhattan immodest? I also think so.
But at least that's within the realm of "modesty". At least there's at least one element of modesty to it. It's not a multi story 6 million dollar home with a floor to ceiling double floor library.
Ironically you’re the one splitting hairs here. It seems clear that your definition of “modest” differs from a few others’. That’s about it, there’s no deeper meaning here. It seems like you’re trying to find disagreement where there is none, and trying to convince others to use the word the way you are familiar with.
I have good friends in the AI industry who are the living embodiment of that Upton Sinclair quote.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
You've never heard such strong one-sided cope until you've talked to an NVDA employee about AI. I'm not even against AI. It's just that a combination of intense financial incentives around a product that provides a good simulation of the Chinese Room has really fucked peoples brains up.
> because the off ramp is clearly happening for ethernet at 10gbit/s
As for
> because that is what devices such as PCs and WiFi access points use
We are looking to the future. If you're putting stuff in the walls, then you should try to target something that will be adequate both today, and in 10 years from now.
Increasingly, prosumer stuff is including an SFP port. High end PCs will be shipping it in the near future, as well. And, while low-power chips are coming out, the simple fact is that physics are getting in the way.
I do think that the average home won't need more than 2.5gbps, pretty much indefinitely (an 8k video at "bluray quality" is about at most 5% of that bandwidth). But if you have any desire of going past 10gbps, Ethernet is not going to cut it.
And yes, before you ask, there is a 25gbase-t standard. Maximum distance: 30m (100ft). 100ft from panel to panel in a house? Oof.
> I do think that the average home won't need more than 2.5gbps, pretty much indefinitely
Yeah I'm not seeing a need for fiber or anything more than CAT6. Most household devices use WiFi and I think that will continue. People don't like wires. They're unsightly, collect dust, get tripped over, etc.
I already have coax cable and telephone wiring in my walls that's unused. One computer in my house has a wired network connection. Everything else, TVs, laptops, printers, phones, tablets, miscellaneous "things" are all WiFi.
> And yes, before you ask, there is a 25gbase-t standard. Maximum distance: 30m (100ft). 100ft from panel to panel in a house? Oof
Not to mention termination and interference considerations, etc. When I looked at it, I decided anything over 2.5g just wasnt worth all the extra hassle vs running fiber instead.
Even with "expensive" electricity, and using your worst case scenario, it's still usually cheaper to charge 400 mile EV from 0-100% (another worst case scenario), than it is to fill up an equivalent gas vehicle. Even before the current gas prices spike.
But let's use your "worst case" scenario.
Worst case 300 mile EV charge (100%, during peak hours): about $50
Filling up a highly fuel efficient ICE vehicle: about $40
Of course, if you only charge the EV to 80% (as is recommended, and more efficient), and only set it to charge it off-peak (as is normal), then the numbers are much better. There are, of course, worst case scenarios, but it's actually hard to make an EV more expensive than an ICE vehicle.
I would say that to charge an EV with a 350 mile range to 300 miles would be about $25 here in California. Right now, a 300 mile range tank of gas is easily $60 or $70.
You have to lose the old mindset of a gas vehicle, ie, you "fill it up" once. EVs are much more convenient: it takes 10 seconds to plug it in when you get home and then the next day it's fully charged - and they're almost all grid pricing aware.
Like, on my BMW PHEV, if I try to fast charge during peak times, the charger actually makes me confirm i want to spend more, instead of trickle charging until 8PM.
reply