vueko

> You could mix and match socialization, questing and exploration to find your preferred flavor of coziness.

For sure. I think one of the big reasons successful MMOs were successful and were such comfortable places to exist in for a lot of people was the broad internal variance of intensity of activities - even if you were in a top raiding guild or a big PvPer or whatever, odds were you probably still spent a solid amount of time running around a meadow picking flowers, enchanting other players' gear, or just trying to jump onto the head of the statue outside the bank while chatting with friends. When you just felt like taking it easy, the game had plenty of things for you to do that matched that vibe, just as there was plenty of challenge on offer for when that was what you were after. I feel like a big part of what theme-park MMOs miss out on, and why they often feel so hollow and unsatisfying, is insufficiently fleshed-out low-intensity activities.

Up-thread, someone was wondering about how a Fromsoft game could ever be considered "cozy" - I think contrast helps engender coziness; Majula or Firelink are definitely cozy, if admittedly a somewhat wistful variety of it. That dynamic of contrasting intensity allows coziness to exist in a game where you're also saving the world on a weekly basis.

The fact that rubber-hose cryptanalysis exists doesn't mean that cryptography is useless. While settings nerding is indeed probably of limited use if you have a direct encounter with authorities, settings nerding can prevent being caught up in a dragnet search for, say, every cell service subscriber present at a protest gone sour, just as ubiquitous cryptography probably can't keep you safe from dedicated NSA attention but can protect against warrantless dragnet fishing expeditions.

As pointed out elsewhere, the line between legal and illegal protest is very blurry and can shift rapidly; if anything, the only way to be sure you're not going to a protest that could eventually be classed as illegal is to never go to a protest, regardless of how pure your intentions are.

I don't think that it being a specific list makes any difference, because the lawless action theoretically incited by this speech is still not imminent; it's abstract in the sense that there's not a direct link between the actor and the speaker. The guy making these cards doesn't know that someone will see them and choose go kill the named CEO. It's possible, sure, but that's not the standard (and if it was, saying something like "Trump is a threat to democracy" would be incitement - it's naming a specific individual target, and it's entirely possible some deranged individual would take that statement as an instruction to carry out an assassination). The Brandenburg test requires that the speaker hold specific knowledge that their speech will result in lawless action; merely knowing that it is possible that the speech inspires lawless action isn't enough. If the guy were handing the cards out to a squad of hitmen, then that wouldn't be protected - such an act would be specific instruction to commit lawless action, not just inspiration as we see here.

And actually, regarding the Brandenburg case itself, this is what was said:

> We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.

So, actually, the speech was specifically directed against a named group of individuals - "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court" - but is still protected because of the lack of imminence. I'll note that there is a distinction between "the President should be killed" and "I will kill the President" - the latter is a true threat, the former is not.

As the ruling says: "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."

Oh true, good point, being wired for ethernet is another valid usecase. I'm lucky in that my ONT is just a commodity Nokia switch I can slap any sfp+ form factor transceiver I want in the appropriate port of for the connection to the router, so in my case 10gbe is truly banishable to the devices I can't get a pcie card into. I'm still in the phase of masking taping cables to the ceiling instead of doing real wall pulls, but when I do get around to that I feel like I'm going to pick up an aliexpress fiber splicer and pull single-mode fiber to futureproof it and make sure I never have to deal with pulls again (and not be stuck on an old ethernet standard in the magical future where I can get a 100gbit wan link).

+1 ebay x520 cards. My entire 10g sfp+ home network runs on a bunch of x520s, fs.com DACs/AOCs, Mikrotik switches, and an old desktop running FreeBSD with a few x520s in it as the core router. Very very cheap to assemble and has been absolutely bulletproof. IME at this point in time the ixgbe driver is extremely stable.

x520s with full-height brackets do exist (I have a box full of them), but you may pay like $3-5/ea more than the more common lo-pro bracket ones. If you're willing to pop the bracket off, you can also find full-height brackets standalone and install your own.

Also, in general: in my experience avoiding 10gbe rj45 is very worthwhile. More expensive, more power consumption, more heat generation. If you can stick a sfp+ card in something, do it. IMO 10gbe rj45 is only worthwhile when you've got a device that supports it but can't easily take a pcie nic, like some intel NUCs.

One reason I like assert strings is that they can assist bug triage in a large organization, assuming that (as in my environment) the string is available outside of the core/kernel dump, probably in the kernel ring buffer/logs. Often, keying off of line number won't work across different branches, maintenance releases, patches and the like, so having a unique-ish string to search known issues/chat history/etc with is valuable. Sure, you can check out the code corresponding to the build that produced the core and find the code context from there, but that's another step that takes time, especially if you have to traverse a bunch of mappings like "oh, the core's from a machine on B_FOO_1337, which according to this one service corresponds to commit abcdef123, which is in repo baz, which I don't actually have checked out and/or fetched recently, oops." In an environment of this sort, it's also frequently not super quick or straightforward to get a debugger set up with the appropriate symbols to open the core and see the context - if a person running through a big list of defects can simply plug the string into a search and go oh, yup, it's known issue #12345 vs. having to hunt for the correct symbols, copy the (potentially several gb!) core around, get gdb to happily open it, etc, that eventually adds up to big time savings. Finally, compiler optimizations can make it so that, while a value is present in the core, the debugger can't automatically find it and gives you that <value optimized out> thing. While you usually can go digging around in the registers to extract it, that's a pain and yet more time. If you put the value(s) of the failed assertion in the string, that's one less spot for someone doing triage to get hung up on when trying to tell whether an issue is something new or just frequency of a known issue.

For stuff I'm just writing by and for myself, yeah, I take your approach. For software that will generate failures I may not be the first person in an organization to have to look at, I add friendly strings.

Interesting, thanks!

Interesting! I was under the impression that the FCC was actually somewhat strict about part 90.35 eligibility, in that you have to provide fairly detailed specifics of your business use case or how you fall under the various educational/nonprofit exemptions, and that if you told them you wanted it for personal use or supplied a thinly veiled excuse they'd tell you to get lost. Maybe that understanding is outdated. I can imagine a HAM club having an easier time justifying that than you would as a random individual.

Seriously. People really need to understand that CTCSS and DCS aren't actually privacy features, but convenience features for filtering out _other_ people's transmissions a user isn't interested in. It's the exact opposite of privacy. I guess the marketing as "privacy codes" worsens the situation.

So, I actually think that if YouTube went poof tomorrow, totally gone, and was not replaced by a similar ad-supported medium, it'd be a boon for makers of quality video content and disproportionately harmful to clickbait chum-farms. Ad-supported video is the incentive system that delivered us Elsagate, and the scale of YouTube w.r.t. feasibility of paid hosting isn't all that it seems.

Every single YouTube creator I watch with any degree of regularity has a Patreon, merch shop, or some other way for those who appreciate their stuff to directly contribute to its production and continued existence. Many say that they rely on those sources of income a lot more than ad revenue, especially those in non-advertiser-friendly niches who have to worry about demonetization. In a no-YouTube world, even assuming p2p video streaming never works out, those folks would be able to pay for hosting with those non-ad income streams, because YouTube's scale is deceptive. Most of the ones I watch don't even have all that many views relative to the big boys - five to six digit, usually - so their viewer:contributor ratio is a lot higher than that of a successful clickbait slop video with ~zero genuine dedicated supporters but a lot of incidental ad views. This dynamic implies that creators with dedicated followings would have a decent shot at supporting themselves even if they had to pay for bandwidth, because their bandwidth spend to revenue ratio is a lot better than average.

The thing about YouTube is that slop outweighs quality content by such a massive margin that if you do napkin math around the raw cost of hosting n hours of streaming video, you end up with a way higher number than you'd have if you stripped out the bulk of the material that wouldn't be economically feasible in a non-ad-supported environment.

A corollary is that without competition from low-quality ad-supported material that couldn't hack it in a donation-centric environment, the good stuff stands out that much more. It's kinda like how you can't really post a recipe without it drowning in an ocean of algorithmically generated fake-ass life stories about grandma's cookies with seven ads before you hit the first ingredient. Without those, organic content, even paid/donation-supported organic content, has a much better shot at encountering the kind of eyeball that'll shell out for the good stuff.

I think the existence of spaces like Bandcamp (for now, anyway, fingers crossed re acquisition) demonstrates that donation-supported streaming can be economically viable. I've spent far more on Bandcamp albums I could have just kept streaming indefinitely for free than I ever did on CDs, because I know that the bulk of that money is actually going to the people who made the stuff I liked, rather than getting siphoned off into corporate middlemen a la legacy record businesses / Spotify and its ilk. Direct-to-artist support in places like Bandcamp has enabled a flowering of high-quality, niche content. People may complain about a simplistic top 40 or whatever, but I'm running into more music right up my alley than ever before, and that's largely due to the newfound ability to cut out the middleman and go right to the creator. YouTube is like the old record industry; it benefits the lowest-common-denominator painfully-focus-grouped artist far more than it does the auteur.