Of course it is no magic solution, but there is no realistic way to provision in such a way that the receiver capacity in one node is greater than the total sender capacity of all the nodes it is connected to. This is of course depending on your specific network scenario, and some problems are solved with just adding more capacity, but in general it is not possible to solve all your network problems with just "more bandwidth". When downloading files it is almost always so that you have more send capacity than receive capacity, for example.

If you have more total send capacity than your node has receive capacity, the buffers are going to fill up while you tell the send nodes to slow down. Without queue management the senders slow down when they see dropped packets, and then continue to slow down until the total send rate equals the receive capacity, and there are no more dropped packets. At this point the buffers stay at the same level since in and out capacity in the buffer is exactly the same.

But since packets don't get dropped until the buffer is full, this means the buffer stays full until the send rate drops. With big transfers, this can take a long time. Now the buffer does no good, and in fact only introduce latency without having any room for additional bursts. What you want to do here is selectively drop packets so the send rate is a little bit slower than the receive capacity. This allows the buffer to empty while essentially still running at full speed. If you do that until the buffer is almost empty, then you have kept the steady state transfer rate at max, while reducing the buffer latency to zero instead of buffer_max_delay.

Also note that this can happen when the bottle-neck is not the network. If you have enough bandwidth eventually the disk at the receiver becomes the bottle-neck when it tries to write all the received data. This also means the senders need to slow down, and packets need to be buffered.

No buffers just mean that you can't handle even the smallest burst over your connection rate without dropping packets. That really sounds like a cheap-ass ISP to me.

Buffers are not there to fix your low connection speed. They are there to handle bursts, and bursts in traffic can happen at any connection speed.

As long as you have 3 identical ports, it is always possible that two of them are sending to the third at the same time. No amount of over provisioning can fix that problem.

Buffers are great, and easy, when you have small bursts because then the buffers empty themselves naturally. Buffer bloat arises when you have sustained traffic at max rate because then the buffers won't get a natural chance to empty, even if your traffic is no longer above your connection speed.

AQM is supposed to let you handle big bursts but at the same time make sure the buffers do not stay full for long periods of time.
If it works well, it is much better than "no buffers".

How does that help if you live in an at-will state?
If you can be fired for any reason with no advance notice, then at the very least they are entitled to fire you on the spot as soon as you come in to work on your first day.

Or did I misunderstand this? US labor laws are a bit hard to grasp for non-americans...

This only works when individuals give feedback with honest intent. Unfortunately this is not always the case.

Some sub-groups (on both the left and the right) seems to get unreasonably worked up about certain topics or people. When they go on a campaign to bury something the rating systems quickly stops being effective for measuring the quality of it.

Also, how much good feedback do you really get from the dislike button? The people explaining their opinion in the comment section seems like it would be much more useful feedback. And that option will still be there.

The VPN is ~90% secure.
Your ISP is ~90% secure
The ISP in a dictatorship is ~30% secure.

The dissident in a dictatorship goes from 30% to 90% with a VPN. You will go from one kind of 90% to another kind of 90%.

Obviously the numbers are just made up, but it illustrates the point. Nobody really knows what the real values are.
Perhaps the VPN is a little bit more safe, perhaps it is a little bit less safe.

For the average user in a western country, the difference is going to be small.

Why would an omnivore feel tricked if they get served soy based "meat"?
I have no moral or religious rules that says I need to eat meat at every meal, or that I can not eat "soy meat".

And I would think most vegetarians at most do "lying by omission", so you trick yourself because you have limited expectations.
I assume it's mostly things like "Pasta Bolognese" and you assume it has meat in it, but they use minced soy meat or something like that.

But if you ask what's in it and they flat out lie, then they are assholes. But anyone who turns down food just because it has no meat in it, without even trying it, is kind of a dick too, and also a fool because they are going to miss out on some good dishes.

I think a lot of people just want things that have usage specs that allow for more than "silicon valley temperatures" and "Tesla on California freeway" level vibrations.

This kind of consumer product should have the expectation that it works for most people, most of the time. Otherwise it is a shitty product. Corporations should perhaps be allowed to sell shitty products, but we kind of wish they didn't.

Sure, not everything will have different prices in different regions. But location based pricing is not a strange concept is all I tried to say.

What are you talking about? Almost everything in the entire world have different prices depending on what region you buy it in.

I explicitly said it depends on supply and demand :-)

Employees will also experience a significant jump in employer demand, which will drive salaries up. The net effect of that is not obvious.
It's for example possible we will se both at the same time. Top employees may have more employers to choose from (and higher salaries), while at the same time employers will have more mid/bottom tier employees to choose from (with lower salaries). That can lead to a greater diversity of salaries.

Obviously, but COL is a simple proxy for an areas general attractiveness.

Your individual preference is not important, as long as they can find someone else who wants that location in the woods.

It may seem simple, but it's actually rather complicated (always has been!) :-)
We are trying to predict what will happen in the future here, not wait 2 years and see what happened in the past.

They are currently paid *more* for the same effort. That is what cost of living adjustment is about.
You don't expect people in low cost of living areas to put in less effort. They are also full time employees.

That is not at all how the labor market works. The value of your labor sets the upper bound for the salary. The lower bound is the lowest amount you are willing to accept. The actual salary will be somewhere in between, and depends on supply and demand. COL adjustments show there can be quite a gap between upper and lower bound.

How would you feel if we live in the same city, do the same job for the same company, but you get paid less than me because you remote in to an office in a low COL area, but I remote in to an office in an expensive area? That's the flip side of keeping the salaries for remote workers.

This is not an easy problem to solve for the companies.

It kind of does. When you make a break through in some area it can fix what was previously a bottle neck. Then you make minor improvements on this until something else becomes a bottle neck. Then you make a break through in another area. And so forth...

Of course they can. They just don't want to, because it lowers profit margins.

Won't the "scaring away" effect mostly be at the stage where you have not yet figured out if you like it?

It takes a while to figure out if you like it and if you are good at it. And a lot of good people lack confidence in their abilities.