Do you think that Facebook doesn’t cost money to build or run?

A crappy years-old ARM-powered smartphone SOC stuck inside a TV costs next to nothing.

• 7zip (archive tool) People still use Winrar for whatever reason.
• Firefox (web browser) - It’s well known but still under-used. Stop using chrome. Chrome will be the end of the free internet.
• windirstat (visualise used disk space) - I use this to clear free space
• musicbee (music player) - replaced VLC with this because VLC has had a bug that makes it not playback FLAC files properly for like… A year?
• Screen2Gif (gif recorder & editor)
• ShareX (screenshot/video tool)
• Open Video Downloader (GUI tool to rip YouTube etc.)
• uBlock Origin (ad-blocker) addon
• Sponsorblock (sponsorship skipper) addon

I fucking hate Teracopy with a vengeance. It’s such a buggy piece of shit. I have never seen it not fuck up and crash when you ask it to do something remotely challenging.

Robocopy is the only thing I use for serious file copy/move jobs.

Governments are probably already directly influencing Lemmy with the usual astroturfing at the very least

See, what you’re having trouble with here is that you don’t want to support censorship, even though you do. You don’t like the connotations, so you find some excuse that makes it more comfortable for you. It’s cowardly and dishonest. The word means what it means. Call me a pedant, tell me I’m not adding to the conversation, I don’t care. You’re still supporting censorship whether you want to wear that label or not.

The term predates that usage by well over 2000 years. Roman censors would essentially punish people for immoral behaviour by taking away their rights or by reducing their status in some way - for example, punishing them for speaking out of turn or publishing offensive material.

Censorship usually is taken to mean the suppression of speech or writing. If you’re legally prohibited from saying or writing something, you’re being censored, by definition.

Where are you getting your definition of censorship as meaning content being edited?

Whether I agree with you or not, technically, it is still censorship. Censorship is the limitations and restrictions on the freedom of expression, for example, prohibiting the publication of threats of violence is still a restriction on freedom of expression. It just happens to be censorship you agree with - that does not counteract the fact that it is censorship.

While governments can’t directly manipulate Lemmy

What the fuck are you smoking? Of course they can.

Given that most people get Pokémon cards in packs of, at least, 15, and their first is usually a whole deck, I dunno if you could really get a lot of people who remember their first card, I definitely don’t! My favourite is definitely Growlithe, but I have no recollection of what my first cards were really, it’s too long ago!

As SI prefixes, they’re all multiples of ten, technically speaking. So referring to 1,024 bytes as a kilobyte is incorrect, it’s 1.024 kilobytes or 1 kibibyte. Microsoft deciding to ignore industry and international standards is the reason for the confusion.

But either way, hard drive manufacturers will sell a 1TB drive, and Windows will see that as a 935GB drive - that’s basically the difference between 2^40 bytes vs. 10^12 bytes

Unless you’re a hard drive manufacturer, of course :)

Lmao okay, yes, defeating every single one of your arguments logically and soundly is absolutely “going straight for ad-hominem”. You’re projecting so hard it’s genuinely very funny.

You can’t really compare small-scale clusters of highly available services with the scale of the entire Internet, it’s just an entirely different ballgame. Though even in small scale setups, there is always a sweet spot between too many paths and not enough paths - VRRP (which is the protocol usually used for high availability) actually has quite a big overhead, you can’t have too many connections on the same network or it causes lots of problems.

Internet scale routing usually uses BGP, which also has quite a heavy overhead.

I guess all you need to understand is that routing isn’t free, and the more routes, the more overhead. So there’s always going to be a point where adding more routes just makes things slower rather than faster. And BGP… is just a bit of a mess, right now, honestly. The BGP table has grown so big that a lot of older devices can’t keep it in fast memory anymore, so they either have to be replaced with newer hardware or use slow memory (and therefore slow processing of packets). So it’s not really in everyone’s best interests to just keep adding more routes. It’s harder and harder to justify.

why there are so many more connections in the north east and west coast if more connections slows the whole system down

I’m not from the US, so at best it would be an educated guess.

Firstly, it’s not as simple as just “more connections is more slow”, it means there’s a greater overhead. If the improvement from adding another line is greater than the overhead, then it can be worthwhile. For example, imagine a simple network with three routers, A, B and C, where A is connected only to B, and C is connected only to B, meaning that B is connected to both A and C. If there is a large amount of traffic between A and C, it may be worth adding a direct connection between them. If there isn’t, then it’s probably not worth doing.

I guess it’s a bit like adding a new road between two existing roads. Is it worth adding a junction and a set of traffic lights to some existing roads, or would that slow down traffic enough not to be worth doing?

Maybe, since you work with software more, it would make sense to put it this way: why don’t you create an index for every single possible column and table in SQL?

Or just look at it like premature optimisation. There’s a saying about premature optimisation in software engineering! ;-)

Another thing to keep in mind though is that there’s definitely still quite a few bad decisions still kicking around from when the internet was new. It takes time and effort to get rid of the legacy junk, same as in programming.

We aren’t recycling solar panels enough

This is pro-nuclear scare mongering. Go ahead and compare the numbers for tons of solar panel E-waste produced compared to tons of nuclear waste produced per year.

Under EU law, producers are required to ensure their solar panels are recycled properly.

We haven’t had a lot of need for solar panel recycling yet because they last so fucking long and even when they reach “the end of their working life” they’re still generating a decent amount of power, so they can just be sold off or given away to someone with no solar panels.

It’s only if solar panels become damaged or really really old that they need recycled. It’s basically a non issue, especially when you compare it to nuclear waste.

Wind still is killing birds

Yet more pro-nuclear propaganda nonsense. Wind turbines kill an absolutely tiny fraction of birds compared to house cats, not to mention birds getting hit by cars, let alone commercial and private aircraft. It’s a non-issue.

uses massive amounts of land

As mentioned above: the entire United States could be 100% powered by renewable electricity if we converted just 5% of the land currently used FOR PARKING SPACES and turned it into renewables. It’s not a real issue.

that’s before we get into the cost of transporting

Which is all factored into TCOE, which, surprise surprise, is around the same or better than the TCOE of nuclear. So, nope, irrelevant. Go ahead and prove that utility-scale renewables have a greater TCOE than nuclear if you want to argue it though. Looking forward to you providing a source.

very real human rights problem

Ah yes, and the extraction of uranium ore, the handling of nuclear waste and the construction of nuclear power plants are all notoriously free from human rights issues!

I’m not using Chernobyl as an example of anything. I’m mentioning it because a number of people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, therefore it has a bearing on the number of deaths caused by that source of power.

nuclear is the cleanest, safest way to do it

That is not true, and I have posted evidence demonstrating that it isn’t true.

Also, IPCC says that all of our energy sources can be 100% renewable and that it’s totally viable. Sorry, but you’re not better informed on this topic than the experts. You’re no better than an anti-vaxxer with your science denial.

The problem that I’m having (and why I asked that) is because I was assuming that you would have some knowledge which you don’t seem to have with a lot of my comments. I’m really not trying to be rude, but it makes it a lot more difficult to explain the flaws in your reasoning when you’re talking about topics that are beyond your knowledge as if you know them well.

I have explained the realities of the situation to you, if you don’t want to accept them, that’s fine, but you’re basically arguing with an expert about something you don’t really understand very well. I’m happy to explain stuff but you should just ask rather than assume you know better because it makes it much more difficult for me to understand the gaps in your understanding/knowledge.

So ultimately, for routers, we have a number of limited resources. Firstly, yes, interfaces, but also the usual stuff - CPU, RAM, etc.

Now, I mentioned before that routing protocols are very complex - they have many metrics which are taken into account to determine what path is ultimately best for each packet. This is a process which can be quite intensive on CPU and RAM - because the router needs to “remember” all of the possible routes/destinations a packet can travel, as well as all of the metrics for each destination - distance, delays, administrative distance, TTL, dropped packets, etc. and then make a decision about processing it. And it needs to make these decisions billions of times a second. Slowing it down, even a tiny bit, can hugely impact the total throughout of the router.

When you add another connection to a router, you’re not just increasing the load for that one router, but for the routers which connect to the routers which connect to those routers which route to the routers that route to that router… you get the idea. It increases the number of options available, and so it places additional burden on memory and processing. When the ultimate difference in distance even an extra 100 miles, that’s less than a millisecond of travelling time. It’s not worth the added complexity.

That’s what I meant when I said that an extra hop isn’t worth worrying about, but adding additional connections is inefficient.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Are you a professional network engineer or are you just a hobbyist?

When many people say socialism, what they mean is capitalist democracy

Lol. Lmao, even

I just wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed this comment. I think it has some good advice but the writing style is kind of unique, it’s almost alien in a way that I can’t quite explain, I liked it!