exactly; I hope ycombinator and its proponents can enjoy living in the ancap fantasy land where you have to pay to be alerted for a climate change fueled mega hurricane (also caused by this exact same reckless, unregulated greed) because NOAA was disbanded. Billionaires shouldn't exist, but neither should millionaires.
The insurance industry long ago figured out that nothing has the profit to effort ratio of "pay us or die", and so any capitalist endeavor that is not somehow restrained will attempt to approach this perfection.
RHEL 9+ (and as a result, its decedents) is built for x86_64-v2 and has increased RAM requirements for certain installation procedures, so now hundreds/thousands of perfectly functional small servers are no longer able to upgrade (to the next EL version, obviously there are other distributions, but then there's the resource/energy requirement to change everything to something new...) (:
the entirety of computing from top to bottom doesn't give a fuck about the environment. The only way to make this "sustainable" is to slow down and fix/maintain things... but of course that's the antithesis of this world we've built.
One project that I keep coming back to again and again is keeping my circa 2011 netbook functional. It was my main computer for most of grad school, and it seems silly that a perfectly functional bit of hardware (for documents, spreadsheets, etc.) like that doesn't work well.
What I've found is mainstream distros seem to have no respect for aging hardware. Especially if they're desktop-focused. I have had some success with Trisquel[0], netBSD, and FreeDOS. I'm confident I could get Gentoo working if I'm picky about ebuild selection and build everything on a more modern computer, but that does sort of feel like it defeats the purpose. Another option would be maybe to install a version of a mainstream distro from 2011, with the caveat that I'd only be able to install software included on the installation media. Debian Squeeze repos are long gone.
I feel like I shouldn't have to stray so far from the beaten path to do something on a computer from 2011 that I could do comfortably on a Packard Bell in 1992.
[0] On recommendation from an FSF employee. Hardware that can run free software top-to-bottom tends to skew a little older, so Trisquel needs to run well on older hardware.
also the fact that an airport is usually not where you live or work, and in the U.S. that means you're still adding to traffic pre/post flight with an additional need for a car on both ends of the trip.
the CAHSR station is at LA's Union station, which I think is the context of this set of comments. The line to Vegas (brightline west) does indeed end (for now) in Rancho Cucamonga with plans to continue on to LA's Union Station
coverage to an entire area is either via "small number of satellites" in geostationary orbits or massive amounts of satellites for low earth orbits, you cannot have both.
"Just replaced by another" is massively oversimplifying every aspect of this, not just the act of putting an object in orbit, but also the coordination of that many MOVING satellites, their fuel levels / end-of-life procedures, all the ground infrastructure needed to support it, and the total amount of energy that this system requires (both on the side of the service providers and users).
Connecting rural or places without internet is not a technical problem, like everything in the world we built it is an issue of priorities. Starlink was not created "for the good of the farmer".
how does private ownership not mean that someone is entitled to control the benefits of an asset? isn't that the entire idea of capitalism?
in the context of public (emphasis on PUBLIC) infrastructure, how does pristine air quality, well paid jobs for workers with ironclad security, not upsetting anyone, strong regulatory controls not be considered in a "high quality product"? How could it be high quality without those? The idea that public infrastructure has to be profitable/a product instead of a public good is misguided and ignores the realities of the costs and requirements associated with such things.
would you say that the strong regulatory nature of air travel makes is low quality? if the NTSB/FHWA took car transportation as seriously as flying, I would imagine the US would not have 40,000 deaths a year just from driving. I don't understand how that amount of death (ignoring pollution, minor/serious injuries, personal cost, lost time, resources both monetary and material, etc) makes the US transport choices a "high quality" product.
It's more of an American cultural trait. People are fearful and obsessed with safety. They can be vocal and overreacting for trivial stuff. They often act in a virtue-signalling manner and put stickers on their cars. Before anything gets done, millions of tweets and reddit comments have been written.
In US, safety is often tight to 'will we get sued for this' mentality that is associated with the corrupt legal system. This could also attributed to the over cost of building a train system in US vs other parts of the world.
If cyclists go through without coming to a complete stop (like 99% of drivers, complete stop means the wheels are not turning and the speedometer says "0") and gets hit, the cyclist/pedestrian dies.
If a car ignores signals, the cyclist/pedestrian still dies.
These are not the same modes of traffic, and forcing everyone on earth to bend to the behaviors of the most dangerous mode of transportation is insanity.
