Ability to write hundreds of terrabytes more is nice. But it's reading them back that I am really worried about. Great news for someone deploying a short term cache.

Not bad 2.6B for 580 -> ~4,5mil/employee.
FB though is 165B for 6820 -> 24mil per.
Where I work is ~1mil/employee

Has the bubble formed yet?

IPv6 addresses are so long that you can't remember them long enough to read the address from one machine and type it into another.

Which is not a problem because normal people don't have to read the IP address from one machine and type it into another. They use DNS and DHCP, which were specifically intended to eliminate the overwhelming majority of instances of dealing with IP addresses directly.

I've been a networking software engineer for most of my career, so I do have to deal directly with IP address (v4 and v6) routinely, and I don't complain about it. My mother is not a networking software engineer or IT person, so she's had to do that exactly ZERO times in the 15+ years that she's used the Internet.

But, it seems unworkable from a human perspective. No I haven't thought of a better solution. I'm just saying that this is a significant usability problem and a barrier to adoption.

It's not a usability problem, because people shouldn't be directly dealing with IP addresses. If people are directly dealing with IP addresses, that is the usability problem which needs fixing, and not the length of the address.

XFS is prone to data corruption when improperly shut down.

Really? Ugh. I thought most modern file systems were consciously designed to avoid that sort of problem.

Distribute pieces of the key to a large number of anonymous individuals, such that thousands of pieces are needed for decryption. A popular Linux distro like Ubuntu could run necessary software by default and, in exchange, give users ability to use timed encryption for their own needs.

What's wrong with extension USB cords?

Actually all of these things WOULD probably be green, if a local forest is not overexploited. You may not have time to do them, but people working in these factories have no better employment prospects. Else they would leave already.

Machines may be more efficient, but they would need to be manufactured and run on coal electricity. Perhaps we should encourage handmade electronics for the time being.

A well designed DVD player would only draw significant power when in active use. With streaming, server and internet infrastructure need to be built for peak usage and consume significant idle power the rest of the time. Client boxes also tend to be more complex and maintain WiFi connection for things like software updates.

Even if power usage when actually watching the disk is much higher, it's hard to complete with a system that can be turned off.

We don't want to structure it at all. This is too big of a task for even the whole humanity. Instead, we want the system to structure itself based on its experiences, including by modifying it's own hardware for subsequent fast processing.

But at this point it will be exactly like brain on philosophical level, albeit probably made of different materials. Doubtlessly, there are many optimizations to remove historical evolutional baggage and only serve current requirements.

Sadly, the SpaceOrb never really caught on (too hard for many to use so I heard, or at the other end of the spectrum purists preferred mouse and kbd). I have about 4 of them, they are old school RS232 9600 baud, far behind the curve for plugging into the HID USB world we live in now.

No, it's not different at all in most senses...technically they are governed by the same legal rules stated in 15.247 (ISM device power is not limited to 20dBM BTW), and most definitely the same Eb/N0 curves. There's pretty good odd's that they even use the same fundamental radio IC. What's a little bizarre is why anyone would want to trade bitrate for range in such an application, the rest of the world is not interested in range, but capacity, so the smaller the cell size, the more cells you can pack in and the more customers you can serve. There's no cost advantage in 100 bps vs 100kbps, its the same single chip IC technology in the $2 range. You might be able to argue it's slightly more energy efficient, but it wouldn't be a strong case with contemporary technology. Plus when you cap the potential bitrate for a single arbitrary device then you cap the range of services. Better to have higher bitrate and very low duty cycle for future proofing. In truth the RF part is uninteresting its mature technology, what makes anything like this potentially more interesting is what gets layered above it.