Compression is prediction. This is true.

The more predictable something is, the more easily it compresses.
A.k.a. the lower the "entropy," the better the prediction.

Knowing what patterns are most likely by being pre-fed things is a fabulous way to lower entropy.

It is just surprising that this is an insight. It follows naturally from the definition.

Compression effectiveness depends on the amount of state fed into the compressor.
The more state fed in, the more compression is possible.

One of the ways to "cheat" here is to already have a library/dictionary of things that you've "fed" the compressor and decompressor.
If you have an image that was similar to one of the dictionary images, then you'll have lots of similarity, and a better compression ratio.

These 'dictionaries' can take many forms, algorithms, prior data, or pre-processed data, such as weights in an ML model.

So, basically: No shit.

The FCC which killed NN wasn't exactly in favor of enforcing rules for the public's good.

Take a look around.

Our internet speeds are shitty, and we pay more for them, than in most other places, even in places where we have the same density or better than in those cheaper, faster, better places? Sarcasm: Clearly that would happen in a place with competition and where the pipe-owners have no leverage... right?

That lack of NN over the past years really made things cheaper and better, didnit?

Nope. Not even close.

Then they should be deploying FQ or RED or similar queuing discplines that allow for the games, etc. to still have low bandwidth while others have high-delay high-throughput stuff.

Failing to deploy FQ or similar will always result in this problem, and it is pretty stupid at this point.

If you can charge it, and know that you will, and can charge it, then surely it isn't overly burdensome to do so at the time of signup.

After all, signup happens once every few years, while you need to know what to charge for every month, which is at least 10X more often!

It matters to the damage award amount.

In the short term, sure.

In the long-term, Authoritarianism seems to be result in a less efficient society (or a more fragile one, e.g. chaos if the dictator dies), which presents risks to those in power.

Do you have food to eat when you're hungry?
Shelter when there is a storm?
Medicine when you're sick?

If not, then your life is curtailed, and so too will be your freedom (no freedom without life)!
So, you work to protect your life, which means you spend time acquiring food, shelter, medicine, etc.

Spending time on those things may preclude spending time on the things you'd like to do (laying on the beach, etc.).

I agree that the warrior-farmer is laughable (outside of fantasy novels, where they're fun!), because in the real world those folks would be out-competed by people who actually worked together and established some rules that were closer to the middle of that spectrum (or even the authoritarians, who will out-compete the anarchists, but still likely lose out to the middle of the spectrum governmental styles)!

The idea that these are opposites is, I believe, incorrect.

Anarchy is the ultimate "liberty"-- theoretically anyone can do anything, but practically, it sucks.

In reality you'd end up with less overall freedom/liberty, because you'd have to spend most of your time ensuring you don't die, your stuff isn't stolen, etc. As a result, you can't support nearly as much specialization (farmers can't just be farmers, they have to be farmers AND warriors to protect themselves), which means everything is less efficient/productive, and you end up with a lower quality of life, more death/starvation, and worse stuff overall.

The truth is that practical freedom/liberty comes from providing sufficient stability that specialization can happen, that not everyone has to be a warrior, and that you and the things in which you've invested time/effort are reasonable secure from being take from you.

If freedom is measured as being able to do things that you want a maximal %age of the time, then, by that metric, we must give up /some/ freedoms in order to get time with which to do the other things you'd want.

If anarchy is one end of the spectrum, then authoritarianism is one of those things at the other end. Authoritarianism also reduces your ability to do what you want a maximal %age of the time.

The "best" area is in the middle between these.

This isn't true in California, because of Prop 13.
In Cali, the folks who've been there for longer are property rich, and have negative impetus to sell, because if they do so, they may reset the property tax floor.

This creates a negative feedback loop-- there is less supply, so prices go up, so you're less incented to sell (if you want to keep living there), which decreases supply...

The issue is that the housing costs increase faster than do one's potential earnings.
If you don't buy now, it is probable it becomes even less affordable as you wait.

True.
We used to be able to tell kids: Hey, go out and play, and back before supper!
Now, you're effectively disallowed to do that.

This increases demand for more house per family. And not a little bit.
Also, the climate in the 70s wasn't as extreme as today. It was again more reasonable to spend more time outside.

Yes, extremes are bad, regardless of which extreme.