You overlooked the hundred trillion dollar coin inside the […].

No, money at rest does not create inflation. It is the consumption of goods and services through use of money that does. Trump could mint a one hundred trillion dollar coin and put it on display in the White House, and this would have no effect on prices, even though he is now richer than all Americans put together… as long as the coin stays on display. But the moment he tries to deposit the coin at a bank and start spending its value to pay for goods and services, all prices will skyrocket, because now there are more dollars competing to buy the same amount of food, the same number of houses, the same number of services, that existed/was being produced before, the same that you are trying to buy.

Remember those news articles last year how the wealthiest 10% of Americans drive 50% of consumer spending? That’s how the rich influence prices. Not hoarding - consumption. The poorest 90% (those earning less than $250k/year, namely you) only have access to 50% of food and consumer goods and such. One person from top 10% consumes 9x more than one person from bottom 90%. If wealth inequality did not exist and the 10% consumed as much per person as the 90%, then you would literally be able to buy 1.8x as much stuff as you can now, with no other changes in productivity required.

Unpopular opinion: yes, you do. 2nd-hand markets contribute to the value of the original item even for things like clothing. When you buy a 2-year old car with intention to sell at 4 years, the price you are willing to pay includes the resale value you expect to get later. Which in turn influences the price of the new car that the original buyer is willing to pay. Another commenter mentioned cell phones having a chain of resales too.

But even for cheaper items that are donated instead of resold, the 2nd-hand use of the item has a non-zero effect on the original production and sale of it, because the act of donation itself is a notable event. You give away an item for free instead of throwing it in the trash because you think the item still has some value and you want someone else to enjoy that value. This works whether you give it directly for free to a person, or donate to a charity shop that then resells it. A charity donation is also recorded as tax-deductible.

The act of donation frees you from guilt/responsibility for throwing the item away without using up its full value. You are then free to buy more of the same item new. Faster than you would have otherwise, had the charity shop not existed. You also value it more, knowing that someone else can use it after you.

So here is a practical scenario for how this effect works. Imagine what would happen if instead of buying problematic child-labor fast fashion clothing from a 2nd-hand charity shop, you refuse! You keep wearing the clothing you have, or buy some non-problematic boring 2nd-hand clothing instead. And I do too. And every other charity store shopper stops buying them as well. Then the charity shop will refuse to take donations of those fast-fashion clothing, right? Just as they would refuse if you brought them a box of VHS tapes today. When the people would bring boxes of their mildly-used fast-fashion clothing for donation, they would be turned away - “nobody wants to buy those!”

Those people might not believe in their responsibility to eliminate child labor, but they still thought of themselves as good people, because they wanted to donate the remaining value for free, but now they can’t. They have to either keep wearing those clothes themselves, or throw them in the trash without feeling good about it. They end up buying fast-fashion clothes less frequently, or buying other clothes instead. Either way, the value of new fast-fashion clothes goes down and less of them are produced, and fewer children are employed to make them. All because of 2nd-hand.

IMO, the only way to consume the remaining value of a 2nd-hand item without having an influence on its original production, is to literally pull it out of the trash. And you have to do it in a way that the original owner isn’t aware of it. Because if they knew, they might feel good about it. Like a baker who makes extra bread knowing that most of it will be unsold and go in the trash at the end of the day, because they have seen people rummaging in the trash bin for food at night (not saying that’s bad, just pointing out the chain of influence).

it’s not geography aware, it’s network topology aware

Yes, I’m using “geographic awareness” here as shorthand for the same algorithm that BGP uses to calculate shortest route. As far as I know, BGP has no knowledge of “countries” or “continents”, it makes decisions purely on local policy and connectivity info available to it. However, the resulting topology map does greatly resemble the corresponding geographic map, a natural consequence of the internet being a physical engineering structure. I’m not sure how publicly available the global BGP data is. If you were designing a backbone-bandwidth-preserving P2P app you would either give it BGP data directly, or if that’s not available, give it the world map to get most of the same benefit.

topology that is often obscured by the ISPs for a variety of benign and malevolent reasons

The multicast proposal would need to be routed through the very same ISP-obscured topology, so there is no advantage over topology-aware P2P.

I’m not sure this math is mathing

As a graph problem, it does look to me within factor of 2 is practical.

First consider a hypothetical topology-aware “daisy chain” scheme, where every swarm user has upload ratio of exactly one. Then every backbone and last-mile connection gets used exactly twice. This is why I say factor of 2 is the upper limit. It’s like a maze problem where you can navigate an entire maze and only traverse each corridor twice. Then look at the more practical “pyramid” scheme where half the users have upload ratio of about 2. Some links get used twice but many get used only once! UK-UK1 link is the only one to be used 3 times. Notably observe that US-JP and US-UK transcontinental links only get used once, as you wanted! Overall this pyramid scheme looks to me to be within 20% efficiency of the optimal multicast scheme.

we’re still using “someone else’s computer” … at “we’re” using “our computer” and that’s the royal “we”. Multicast is all switch no server, all juice, no seed

What do you think backbone routers are? They are computers! Specialized for a particular task, but computers nonetheless. Owned by someone other than you. Your whole lament is that you can’t force those owners to implement multicast on their routers. I think using the royal “our” computer, something we can do right now without forcing anyone else, is much better by comparison. If you insist that P2P swarm members, they who actually want to see your livestream, are not good enough, that you only want to use “your” computer to broadcast and no one else’s, then you are left with no options other than bouncing HAM video signals off the ionosphere. And even the radio spectrum is claimed by governments.

MBGP table will be megabytes long and extremely dynamic

I think you underestimate the size. Imagine if multicast were ubiquitous, billions of internet-connected users each with dozens? hundreds? of multicast subscriptions. Each video content creator is a multicast, each blogpost you follow, each multi-twitter handle, each lemmy community you subscribe to. Hundreds easily. Thats many gigabytes, possibly hundreds of gigabytes, of state to fit into every router. BGP is simple because you care only about the physical links you actually have. You can stuff entire IP ranges into a single routing table entry. Your entire table could be a dozen entries. Fits inside the silicon. With multicast I don’t think you can fold it in, you must keep the entire many-to-many table on every single router^[1]. And consult the 100GB table to route every single packet, in case it needs to get split. As you said, impossible with 1990s technology, probably possible but contrary to business goals in 2020.

You are concerned about the battery life of your phone when you use the bandwidth of 2 video streams compared to watching just 1? Yet you expect every single router owner to plug in hundreds of gigabytes of extra RAM sticks and spend extra CPU power and electricity to look up routing tables to handle your multicast traffic for you. You are just offloading the resource usage onto other people’s computers! Not “our” computers - “theirs”. Remember how much criticism Bitcoin got for wasting resources? Not the proof of work, but the having to store a duplicate copy of 100GB’s of transactions blockchain on every single node? All that hard drive space wasted! When “Mastercard” and “Visa” can do it with only a single database on a mainframe. Yet now you want “them” to do the same and “waste” 100GB’s of RAM on every single router just so your battery life is a little better.

If everyone suddenly used the internet to this full potential, then we would get the screws turned on us. … Multicast would essentially fly under the radar.

This does not follow. Didn’t you say that multicast was already sabotaged by the very same cablo-distribution networks to maintain their send-monopoly? You expect to force the ISPs to turn multicast back on and somehow have it fly under the radar, but P2P would get the screws turned? It can’t be one and not the other! If you plan to have the governments force the ISPs to fall in line and implement multicast standards, then why couldn’t you have the same governments (driven by democratic pressure of billions of internet users demanding freedom, presumably) enshrine P2P rights? Again, remember that P2P is something we already have, something that already works and can be expanded with no additional cooperation from other players. Multicast is something that would need to be forced on others, on everyone, and require physical hardware updates. If there are future restrictions on P2P, they would be easier to defend against politically and technologically. If you cannot defend P2P, then you for sure do not have enough political power to force multicast.

[1]: Thinking about this, maybe you could roll it in a little. Given N internet users (~a billion), each with S subscriptions (say a hundred), C number of content feeds (a hundred million? 10% of users are also creators, 90% are pure consumers), and each router has P physical links (say ten), then instead of N*S amount of state (100GB’s), each router could fold it down into C*P amount of state (1GB’s). As in “If I receive a multicast packet from [source ip=US.5.6.7] to [destination ip=anyone], route copies of it out through phy04, phy07, and phy12”. You would still need a mechanism to propagate table changes pretty rapidly (full refresh about once every minute?). Your phone can be switching cells or powering on and off. You don’t want to multicast packets to a powered-off IP - that would be waste of resources!

And how do you detect oversubscribing? If a million watchers subcribe to 1 multicast livestream - it’s fine, but what happens when 1 troll subscribes to a million livestreams? If I subscribe to 1 million video streams, obviously my last-mile connection cannot fit them all. With TCP unicast, the senders would not receive TCP ACK replies from me and throttle down. But with multicast, the routers in between do not know about my last mile, or even if my phone is still powered on since later than a minute ago. All they know is “if receive multicast from IP1, send to phy04; if receive multicast from IP2, send to phy04;” etc. Would my upstream routers not get saturated trying to send a million video streams to a dead IP? Would we need to implement some sort of a reverse-multicast version of “TCP ACK”?

While I agree that P2P is the next best thing and torrents are pretty awesome, they are unicast and ultimately they waste far more resources, especially intercontinental bandwidth than multicast would.

Tell me if I understand the use case correctly here. I want to livestream to my 1000 viewers but don’t want to go through CDNs and gatekeepers like Twitch. I want to do it from my phone, as I am entitled to by the spirit of free internet and democratization of information, but I obviously do not have enough bandwidth for 1000 unicast video streams. If only I had ability to use multicast, I could send a single video stream with multicast up my cellular connection, and at each internet backbone router it would get duplicated and split as many times as necessary to reach all my 1000 subscribers. My 100 viewers in Japan are served by a single stream in the trans-Pacific backbone that gets split once it touches land, is that all correct?

In that case, torrent/peertube-like technology gets you almost all of the way there! As long as my upload ratio is greater than 1 (say I push the bandwidth equivalent of TWO video streams up my cellular), and each of my two initial viewers (using their own phones or tablets or whatever devices that can communicate with each other equally well across the global internet without any SERVERS, CDNS, or MIDDLEMEN in between, using IPv6 as God intended) pushes it to two more, and so on, then within 10 hops and 1 second of latency, all 1000 of my viewers can see my stream. Within 2 seconds, a million could see me in theory, with zero additional bandwidth required on my part, right? In terms of global bandwidth resource usage, we are already within a factor of two of the ideal case of working multicast!

It is true that my 100 peertube subscribers in Japan could be triggering my video stream to be sent through the intercontinental pipe multiple times (and even back again!), but this is only so because the peertube protocol is not yet geographic-aware! (Or maybe it already is?) Have you considered adding geographic awareness to peertube instead? Then only one viewer in Japan will receive my stream, and then pyramid-share it with all the other Japanese.

P2P, IPv6, and geographic awareness is something that you can pursue right now, and it gets you within better than a factor of 2 of the ideal multicast dream! Is factor of 2 an acceptable rate of waste of resource usage? And you can implement it all on your own, without requiring every single internet backbone provider and ISP to cooperate with you and upgrade their router hardware to support multicast. AND you get all the other features of peertube, like say being able to watch a video that is NOT a livestream. Or being able to read a comment that was posted when your device was powered off.

Also, I am intrigued by the great concern you give for intercontinental bandwidth usage, considering those pipes are owned by the same types of big for-profit companies as the walled-garden social networks and CDNs that are so distasteful. From the other end, the reason why geographic awareness has not already been implemented in bittorrent and most other P2P protocols is precisely because bandwidth has been so plentiful. I can easily go to any website in Japan, play video games with the Chinese, or upload Linux images to the Europeans, without worrying about all the peering arrangements in between. If you are Netflix you have to deal with it and pay for peerage and build out local CDN boxes, but as a P2P user I’ve never had to think about it. Maybe if 1-to-millions torrent-based server-less livestreaming from your phone were to become popular, the intercontinental pipe owners might start complaining, but for now the internet just works.

End of Eternity (1955) by Isaac Asimov (and its reimagining in Palimpsest (2009) by Charles Stross) involve a time-traveling secret organization that has its headquarters hidden away in time/outside of time. They don’t so much drain resources though as manipulate history to ensure a safe course.

The very wiki article quoted says average to mean mean (made explicit later). OP showerthought was calculating life expectancy in a way different than commonly understood. The first nitpick was correct.

fraud

Sabotage. Property made unusable. Passengers were literally stranded in the middle of a journey.

It’s worse. They are saying that the EU copyright law, as written, only allows decompiling/reverse engineering to “fix bugs”. A bug fix would involve a software patch of some sorts. But the security researchers did not have time to write a patch yet, what they did is tell the customer “Yep, it’s fucked. Your vendor put in a killswitch to make the trains brick themselves.” So that does tell them where the problem is, but it is not a bona fide bug fix from the Bugfix region of France, and therefore illegal.

Newag [train maker] claims that the Dragon Sector [whitehat hacker] team endangered passengers’ safety by modifying the software without proper experience. But Newag then turns right around and claims that Dragon Sector did not modify the software at all. They point out that EU law only allows reverse engineering of software in order to fix bugs. And if Dragon Sector did not actually modify the software, it cannot have fixed any bugs, in which case their reverse-engineering must be illegal.

There has never been a law that someone selling something must offer the same price to everyone. Outside of some government regulation, like banning discrimination based on a few specific protected groups under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, government-set energy prices on state-granted monopoly electrical grids, annual rent increase percentage caps, etc. merchants have always been free to set any price on any product or to any customer.

but hopefully for the last time

That’s what they said last time. “Never again” etc.

I agree that OP is in the best position to report the crime to the police - they are closest to the police station, they have video evidence, they literally know who the thief is - but it should not be their responsibility! OP has done nothing wrong and there are no measures they could have taken to prevent this crime (other than not shopping online at all). If OP gets a police report, OP is taking up the task of being the victim, and then BestBuy has no legal obligation to refund them at all, other than out of the kindness of their heart. Rather, BestBuy is the victim in this crime, same as if the item was stolen off the shelf at their warehouse and scanner records forged. It is their responsibility to file a police report, if they want the numbers in their system to add up. Only then could they ask OP to kindly provide the video evidence to help them out, and they’d be lucky if OP would give it to them, having no obligation to do so.

Yes! It’s an olympics game of mental gymnastics where everyone - BestBuy, DoorDash, OP, the police - try to offload responsibility onto someone else. However, a crime WAS committed. Someone is the victim. The victim is the one who was deprived of property/money and will not have access to it until/unless the thief is caught and property recovered. BestBuy thinks OP is the victim, since the item was stolen off (not)their porch. OP thinks BestBuy should be the victim, since OP had no involvement in organizing the delivery. DoorDash could also take up responsibility of being the victim, since it was their (not)employee that stole from them.

If OP goes to the police now, they would be losing the mental gymnastics by accepting the status of the victim. BestBuy would never refund them in this case. It is in OP’s best interest to pursue the chargeback first. If OP succeeds in the refund or the chargeback, then BestBuy will have no package and no money, so BestBuy would be the victim. Then it will be BestBuy’s responsibility to report the crime.

The “libertarian paradise” idea is that as far as Best Buy is concerned, the item was delivered. If the DoorDash delivery driver happened to turn right around and steal the package, that’s a separate crime and a matter for the police to deal with, same as if anyone else had stolen it. And it’s OP’s fault for not picking the box up sooner, during the 3 seconds it was sitting on the porch. The porch that wasn’t even theirs. So anyway, the libertarian solution is for OP to contact police to track down the thief and either recover the stolen item or sue the thief for monetary compensation. Best Buy is innocent and no refund is coming. DoorDash is innocent too because they contracted with an independent contractor to deliver the item, and what the contractor does after the item has been delivered is not their responsibility.

This is literally that scene from Schindler’s List where the Commandant sits on the balcony and snipes any prisoner below who isn’t laboring fast enough. And for years they were saying this was unrealistic and such crass cruelty could not have happened!

https://piped.video/watch?v=N0DqnUk90lo

Always has been 🪩👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

The Pied Piper strategy from the 2016 Clinton campaign!

By denying the Constitution of the United States in violation of his Oath of Office, House Speaker Mike Johnson is unironically committing treason right now.

You implied it by answering Corngood’s question “You have to rank 5 candidates?” with a link to a general RCV video. You misunderstood Corngood to not know what RCV is. However, within the context of this thread (“NYC elections”), some awareness of RCV is to be presumed. Indeed, Corngood mentions in another comment to have already used RCV before. To me it was clear Corngood was upset about the “have to rank 5”, not about “WTF is RCV”. By linking to a general video you are implying that this is how RCV works, that you HAVE to rank 5, otherwise it won’t count, which is false. That’s not what you meant, but this is how it appears to other readers who would not be aware of your original misunderstanding. Those of us who actually like RCV feel an obligation to step in and correct you, all of us at once, to pre-empt the hazard of somebody else believing in your (unintentional) implication and ending up with the wrong idea that “wow, RCV sucks! your ballot gets thrown out if you don’t fill in all 5 bubbles perfectly!”