I couldn't care less what happens to the wine industry, but are people really using weed as an alternative? They're completely different experiences. I enjoy drinking, but cannabis is in no way pleasurable to me at all.
corroded
joined 1 year ago
This is very situational. I'm not a contractor, but I spend a significant portion of my time doing hobbies that require power tools. I don't need a drill that will last for an entire day at a jobsite. Ryobi works fine for me. On the other hand, I wish I had never spent $600 on a cheap planer; I knew I'd want a better one eventually,, and sure enough, I found a need to upgrade after a few years. Now I've spent $3600 on planers. I could have just gone with the $3k one and saved myself $600.
If I'm going to use it once, I borrow it. If I'm going to use it every few months, I buy a cheap one. If I'm going to use it every week, then it's worth it to me to buy something I can keep for at least a decade or two.
I agree with you to a certain point.
When somebody finishes high-school and becomes an adult, they should develop a useful skill that they can turn into a career. This might be going to college for STEM, it might be a trade-school, or it might be an apprenticeship as a skilled tradesman. I wouldn't discount all liberal arts degrees either; a degree in graphic design can be well worth the time.
The important thing is that people entering the workforce can say "I'm a doctor," "I'm a plumber," "I'm an auto mechanic," "I'm a software developer," etc. Be able to say "I do something."
Going to college for an undergraduate degree in art history? That's something you should do after you're already established in your career and you feel like you'd like to learn something more. Going to school to learn to be a chef, paint cars, build furniture, etc, they might not be STEM or law degrees, but they're useful.
I guess in summary, kids should go to school to learn a useful skill. Adults should go to school for whatever they want.
It really depends on how far back you want to look.
If the US was to suddenly stop projecting its interests internationally, then as others have mentioned, then likely the world work become somewhat more socialized. European countries would probably step up and try to keep China in check, but without the US contributing to these efforts, it would cause a significant strain on their military resources.
If the US was to take an isolationist policy 100 years ago, then there is a good chance that WW2 would have been won by the Axis. The Allied forces likely would have put up a good fight, but I'm not sure they would have emerged victorious against the combined Axis forces. The war in the Pacific would have raged on much longer, and without nuclear weapons, there would have been an extreme loss of life invading Japan. At the very least, WW2 would have lasted much much longer than it did. Depending on the outcome, plenty of countries might currently be speaking German and debating if they should tear down 80-year-old statues of Hitler.
A lot of boomers are really particular about well-manicured yards, pristine gardens, etc. Squirrels do not help with this.
I love seeing little divots where our squirrels bury nuts. If they eat some of our plants, then I put a cage around it or plant new ones. Seeing the little guys play and eat the food we put out for them far outweighs any minor landscaping problems they cause.
I thought I spelled something wrong; I didn't, and now I'm lost. Aren't most non-fiber connections asymmetrical connections?
The problem isn't that Harris is being held to a higher standard. The problem is that Americans think of elections the same way they think of a sporting match. It's "my team is going to win!" not "I'm going to vote for the candidate that is best aligned with my beliefs." A huge number of the people who are voting Republican are doing so because the Republican party is their "team," and damn it, their team is going to win even if it kills them.
Many years ago, I was discussing politics with a coworker (always a bad idea, but whatever). It went something like this:
"So, you don't think the less-fortunate should be able to afford medical care?" "No, of course not, everyone should be able to see a doctor."
"You don't think gay people should be allowed to marry?" "I'm not gay, but they can do whatever makes them happy."
"You support the war in Iraq, then?" "I support our troops, but the war is kind of a waste."
"We definitely should legalize weed, right?" "Um, I'd smoke it if I didn't get drug tested."
"So why are you voting Republican, then?" "My family is Republican; we always do."
This is only true when you have a single transmission medium and a fixed band. Cable internet is a great example; you only have a few MHz of bandwidth to be used for data transmission, in any direction; the rest is used up by TV channels and whatever else. WiFi is also like this; you may have full-duplex communications, but you only have a very small portion of the 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz band that your WiFi router can use.
Ethernet is not like this. You have two independent transmission lines; each operates in one direction, and each is completely isolated from any other signals outside the transmitter and receiver. If your ethernet hardware negotiates a 10Gb connection, you have 10Gb in one direction and 10Gb in the other. Because the transmission lines are separate, saturating one has absolutely no effect on the other.
You are absolutely correct; I phrased that badly. Over any kind of RF link, bandwidth is just bandwidth. I was more referring to modern ethernet standards, all of which assume a separate link for upload and download. As far as I am aware, even bi-directional fiber links still work symmetrically, just different wavelengths over the same fiber.
If you have a 10GBaseT connection, only using 5Gb in one direction doesn't give you 15Gb in the other. It's still 10Gb either way.
This is a really good explanation; thank you!
There is one thing I'm having a hard time understanding, though; I'm going to use my ISP as an example. They primarily serve residential customers and small businesses. They provide VDSL connections, and there isn't a data center anywhere nearby, so any traffic going over the link to their upstream provider is almost certainly very asymmetrical. Their consumer VDSL service is 40Mb/2Mb, and they own the phone lines (so any restriction on transmit power from the end-user is their own restriction).
To make the math easy, assume they have 1000 customers, and they're guaranteeing the full 40Mb even at peak times (this is obviously far from true, but it makes the numbers easy). This means that they have at least a 40Gbit link to their upstream provider. They're using the full 40Gb on one side of the link, and only 2Gbit on the other. I've used plenty of fiber SFP+ modules, and I've never seen one that supports any kind of asymmetrical connection.
With this scenario, I would think that offering their customers a faster uplink would be free money. Yet for whatever reason, they don't. I'd even be willing to buy whatever enterprise-grade equipment is on the other end of my 40/2 link to get a symmetrical 40/40; still not an option. Bonded DSL, also not an option.
With so much unused upload bandwidth on the ISP's part, I would think they'd have some option to upgrade the connection. The only thing I can think is that having to maintain accounts for multiple customers with different service levels costs more than selling some of their unused upload bandwidth.
This is kind of a shit article. Most of these are just old hardware that eventually had modern improvements, not "trends."
A "trend" is cold cathode black lights inside the case, not a silly naming scheme for CPU revisions.
view more: next ›
That's kind of the point I was trying to make. They feel so different, I can't imagine one being a viable alternative to the other.