So this is Geniza from between the First and Second Temple? Sorry, just had to ask. :)

imagine how many more thousands they could save by replacing 200k in toy computers with a real datacenter platform.

My, we are an aggressively stupid dipshit today.

The only thing that meaningfully matters to a cargo ship is size.
Vessels are already slow sailing to artificially constrain bandwidth and prop up rates, and have been since COVID.

Nobody on earth is trying to build FASTER cargo ships, and haven't for 50 years. Jesus Christ. If only slashdot had a "doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about" filter.

Well, no, there's no law against shipping single containers at a time either. It just means a banana costs $100,000.

We have an entire thread here where you have ecological doomsayers are telling the world's most efficient transport industry how they can do things better. Sure.

Half the size? By what math?

It can carry 5300t. That's 215x 20t containers.

The largest container ships today are in the 23000 teu range which even if we assume they can't all max out at 20t... Let's assume 10t.... Is still 230,000t or 43x larger.

I genuinely don't understand why slashdots downvote mafia attacked my former post as troll. Unless I miss my guess I have a fair couple of stalkers that just downvote every post I make, and then pepper my comments with bottish AC replies about Trump and No Kings. :|

Anyway, to your point, if you haven't seen it, I offer for your amusement something relative to your comment from the great Trevor Moore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"More people need to spend more time trying to enjoy their own lives instead of obsessing over what other people are doing."

Well jesus christ man, if we can't spend our idle hours scolding other people for what they wear/do/drive/eat/believe, what's the fucking point of social media even FOR then?

Well yes, if we radically change the rules about how we measure things, we can successfully re-apportion blame to the US, the inventor of slavery, war, and all things bad.

Congrats!

With a president who solves an existential threat by finding the best expert he can find, and using his own formidable political skills and charisma to run interference for that expert.

Seriously, Comacho was a meathead, but Iâ(TM)d vote for him.

Honestly, the problem was Co. v. Riggs (203 U.S. 243 (1906)) that established corporations be treated legally like people.

The moment this happened it was the beginning of the exoneration of c-suites from the consequences of their actions. I suspect that if these individuals' freedom and wealth were liable for the consequences of their choices, the subsequent century would have played out rather differently.

I think we all know nothing good ever came from that place.

I suspect that these streams are costing Youtube money. They can't monetize them, and they have to spend effort shutting them down or they get in serious legal trouble. If things persist I suspect that Youtube changes its live streaming service in ways that make this impossible.

We will see though.

The problem, of course, is that Sports content is paying more than its fair share of the bill for all televised content. It is easy to see the large bills and assume that sports is a cost center, but the reality is that sport tends to pay its own way, while scripted television is much more of a gamble. To a certain extent that is why most scripted television these days is so formulaic. The television studios know that they can make money with modern versions of "The Rockford Files." That's why NCIS is in its quadzillionth season.

Severance is great, but it is a prime example of what I am talking about. Apple has spent billions of dollars on content at this point, and they are still hemorrhaging money. People like their shows, but they aren't lining up to pay for them. Shoresy is in a better spot, but only because Disney is doing its level best to tie Shoresy to ESPN and other sports related content that people are willing to pay for. The folks wanting to buy ESPN can get the rest of the Disney bundle for pennies. You can't just buy ESPN, you have to buy it with a television package. Disney does this because they know that if people have their other channels, then they tend to watch them. They are willing to pay a premium, however, for sports.

Hulu is cheap, and you can get it by itself. The same goes for AppleTV. All of these cost Netflix amounts of money $12 (or so) a month. When I worked for Sling it's entire packaging was based around making it possible to bundle ESPN for less than anyone else. If you want ESPN the least you can pay is $45/month, and that doesn't give you the other channel's sports package, that you probably want if you are a sports fan as well. It is very likely that the team that you follow will have at least one game on ESPN's competitors. That means that if you are purchasing from Sling you need the blue package as well (which is another $45, or bundled will total $60). You could easily sign up for all of the non-sports streaming channels for less than an Orange+Blue package (which once again is as competitively priced as it is possible to do). I was just looking at Disney's bundle, and you can get Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN for $35/month, which is definitely the least expensive way to get ESPN these days. That's with ads, which are added even to VOD content. If you want to watch your VOD content without ads that's another $10. Linear content (like watching cable) always comes with ads. Sports fans can't dodge ads ever.

I bring up pricing like this to make it clear which parts of television customers are actually willing to pay money for. If you don't want to pay for sports (and I don't blame you), then you can easily pay $12/month and switch between streaming providers and watch whatever shows you want to watch. All of those services allow you to easily stop and continue your subscription, and none of the content is likely to go away. Heck, chances are good that, if you wait long enough, you can watch the shows that you want on one of the free services. In most cases they are literally giving away old scripted content. The problem with this model, is that it doesn't make Hollywood enough money to be profitable with their current structure. The reason that Disney (and everyone else) bundle channels the way that they do is because they know that they can't afford to gamble on scripted content unless they bundle those risks with the proven money generation of sports content. More and more people like you, who don't want to pay for sports content, are opting for less expensive alternatives that still get them the shows that they want.

This market contraction is why Hollywood is so focused on franchises that have historically been popular. So instead of new shows we get derivatives of things that were popular in the past. Scripted content is risky, and as it gets uncoupled from less risky sports content producers do whatever they can to hedge their bets. So we get a re-re-remake of the TMNTs, Spiderman, or we get another cop show. Recently we have also been blessed with shows that have been popular in other countries or markets (that is legitimately cool in my opinion), but that is also likely to dry up as entertainment becomes more global.

Which leaves what can be done on Youtube budgets for anything remotely risky. Which is fine, I suppose. Personally, I like watching people restore old sailboats. That's not something that is ever going to be more than a niche market, but on Youtube that's enough of a market to make it financially viable for a few people. Maybe with AI it will even become possible to do good SciFi with that sort of a budget. Who knows? One thing is certain, it is definitely interesting times ahead.

China IS bad! Tiananmen Square massacre. Enslavement of Tibet. Uighur genocide. Constantly threatening to invade Taiwan. One-party rule, just like in California. Check out the youtube channel Laowhy86, he gives constant updates of just how bad it is over there.

Dipshit alert.
If you want to go to that granularity, there's no Black culture nor Asian culture, etc.

Literally, if there is a society of people that's a) uniformly a single ethnic group and b) collectively acts in ways that are identifiable and predictable to the group, it would be Scandinavians.

I'd recommend you read something by Geert Hofstede, if you can read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...