I hope you’re still joking.

Data caps are to an extent “fake”, in that telcos’ costs aren’t measured in how many bytes their customers download/upload. Telcos’ costs come from renting bandwidth from tier 1 and tier 2 ISPs. This bandwidth is constant.

And for popular websites, they will cache lots of content on their own network or peer directly with data centers so they don’t have to pay for the bandwidth there. The routers will continue routing and the switches will continue switching whether you download 5GBs or 5TBs.

One more way to understand how much of a scam mobile data caps are, is that the same ISP will sell you unlimited fiber plans even though essentially your traffic goes through the same backbone.

Data caps may help lessen congestion on their cell towers, but they don’t need to be as low as they are today.

> Telcos’ costs come from renting bandwidth from tier 1 and tier 2 ISPs. This bandwidth is constant.

In the long run, all costs are variable. Phone companies lack the bandwidth to provide all their customers unlimited data all the time. Most of them can’t even provide full speeds to their existing customers at peak times. If they gave everyone unlimited data they’d have to get more bandwidth, and they’d pass on every penny of the cost.

> Data caps may help lessen congestion on their cell towers

Data caps make congestion worse, because you are more likely to restrict where you use data and people are predictable. You'll no longer use bits everywhere because you care less, you'll use it where everyone else does.

Didn't https everywhere ruin caching? Unless you MITM everyone like CloudFlare.

https-everywhere does indeed prevent transparent proxying by ISPs. Mostly this isn't an issue: site owners are less likely to have their content tampered with by a content distribution network than by an ISP, and have full control over which CDN(s) are allowed to act on their behalf. Larger content providers operate their own CDNs, of course.

In the case of TFA, PC Gamer isn't directly consuming the bandwidth with their own servers on their own domain name. It's an ad distribution network doing that, and odds are reasonable they're already colocated someplace with your ISP and the bandwidth consumed by ads is totally irrelevant to everyone except the poor sap at the home end of the last mile.

They don’t treat Israeli* women like a second class citizen.

They’re totally fine treating gentile women, men and children as cattle. Slaughtered and imprisoned at will.

Do you really believe this “altruistic” angle?

Yes, I don't want to live under Islamic rule.

I might be convinced that the Administration was concerned about people being forced to live under Islamic rule if it was as eager for war with Saudi Arabia as it is with Iran.

(I wouldn't support it any more in that case, but I would be more inclined to believe that its motivation might actually have anything to do with "Islamic rule".)

Where do you live where Islamic rule is a worry?

Note how they won't answer. They're affected by media FUD.

So when do we start adding a “(mis)” at the start of their name?

Doesn’t sound like a bad thing to evaluate the most obvious alternative to build confidence before officially pulling the plug.

The key requirement is memory safety, which would rule out Zig.

Last time I checked, Zig was breaking it's stdlib, so it's not an alternative imo

I cannot tolerate children crying or being generally loud.. unless it’s my kid, then it barely registers at worst, enjoyable at best.

At one point it started spitting out its CoT in the comments of the code it’s supposed to be changing.

Ah yeah I've seen that too. Definitely seems related.

I suspect this is also something like the "inverse" of a prompt hijacking situation. Basically it's losing track of where its output is flowing to (whereas prompt injection is when it loses track of where its input is flowing from).

Yes over USB 2.0 until recently.

8x engineer

How does routing work?

How do I know that for device A to reach device B, I need to go through device C but not D?

And if I try to go through device D but device C actually delivers the message, then does device D get paid? How would you validate which devices actually participated in the transmission of the message? How does this not turn into a privacy nightmare?

This is a problem solved multiple times in the past.

Look up "distributed peer to peer" e.g. kademlia

Kademlia relies on an already existing all-to-all mesh (the internet). Nobody has created an actual mesh routing protocol which works very well.