Freenet is also based on middle-out compression.

No. Trying to push 30TB into Freenet will be interpreted as an attack on the network by other peers and they'll disconnect from your peer.

Freenet is better viewed as a communication medium than a storage medium. Data is prioritized according to demand, somewhat like an LRU cache. You can't upload 30TB and expect the network to preserve it for you.

On liability, running a Freenet peer is more like running network infrastructure that automatically routes and caches other people's traffic than intentionally publishing it. US law explicitly recognizes this distinction in the DMCA's provisions for transitory network communications and system caching. We discuss this in more detail in the FAQ.

You obviously haven't tried Freenet. You can join our room on River and you'll see no spam, no fraud, no hate speech, none of that.

Decentralized doesn't mean unmoderated. Systems built on Freenet can be moderated however their creators and communities want. River is moderated.

The difference is that nobody running one service gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to run.

They're destined for West Texas, where gas companies will pay you to take the natural gas they have to burn off otherwise. They are installing private natural gas turbines to power these things. Amazon is building a huge one as we speak. What's halted is connections to the grid, the off-grid ones are marching along unabated, and there are a lot of them.

Did it grow legs, plug in an Ethernet cable, proceed to leave the building and push the nearest senior citizen in front of a bus? These things don't do things on their own. It's just a bunch of static floating-point numbers memory-mapped into VRAM. What they do is take an input (ver much NOT on their own) and derive instruction context from that input. That input may say to "keep trying" until "something" happens. If no ground rules are provided, the calling harness will loop-and-loop-and-loop looking for a way to make that "something" happen. So to be clear, nothing happened on its own and it certainly didn't set its own goal. Someone prompted it to do “something," and the path it derived to achieve that "something" happened to go through a combination of known exploit vectors that targeted HF. So much nonsense and fearmongering. Know what the ultimate defenses against a harness and model are? Unplug the machine and yank out the network cable. The level of ignorance on the news about how these things are pure black magic is just off the charts.

I stopped using Rust because the compiler is an unmitigated pain in the ass. I'm not a 5-year-old. I know damn well when something is safe. If I have to tag everything unsafe to access memory in an optimal way, then what is Rust bringing to the table other than frustration? I moved over to Zig, which is much C-like, produces faster, smaller, and arguably just as safe binaries, and also happens to support C-FFI and cross-compilation out of the box. There is literally no advantage Rust has over Zig for C programmers.

I could argue that there's a shortage of houses because nobody will build me one for $5K. I wouldn't be wrong, but the trick to not being wrong is the $5K caveat, and that's the issue with all these labor shortage proclamations. Labor shortage always means there's "nobody willing to do this job for what I want to pay", not a blank "nobody is willing to do this job". I guarantee you, without a shadow of a doubt, if cleaning restrooms paid $750K a year, there would be an endless pool of labor for restroom cleaners.

Neither is Elordi

The good thing is hiring 9,000 H1Bs now could cost $900,000,000 in filing fees, and visas are weighted so that the highest wage H1Bs are given 4x the weight of the lowest wage H1Bs. I've noticed the number of H1B “entry-level openings" meaningfully decrease, which means it was never actually about talent "scarcity" and all about talent "cost". The H1B funnel is also getting a double whammy with AI consuming exactly the offshore-able, entry-level work the H-1B and offshore IT models were built around. The cost advantage that enabled both to work is at the point of economic unviability.

There is zero chance I'd go back to an ICE car. The maintenance, reliability, and fuel costs are not even comparable. The math behind driving an ICE car today only makes sense if you need to tow large loads for significant distances. The caveat is that you need a place to charge them for it to be stress-free. We calculated not long ago that it would take $0.25/gallon gas to make an ICE car break even with what we're spending on EVs.

"Windows is more for power users and MacOS is more for people who want their hand held"

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Let me be blunt: macOS is an engineer's machine, Windows is for Susan in accounting. I spend 90% of my day in terminal windows on macOS, using make and compilers. I write code running on more machines, including Linux and Windows, on my Mac that you can even begin to imagine. I agree that Linux workstations tend to be used by more technical people. I have an ARM64 Ubuntu workstation myself, but to state that Windows is for "power users" shows that you have never worked in Silicon Valley circles. Virtually nobody in any form of advanced engineering uses Windows. The notable exception are a handful of terrible PCB design tools that are Windows only that everybody hates with a passion. Funny enough, most of them are now using AI agents to drive those tools ... from their Macs.

To me the hoops that smoothbrains will jump through to avoid IPv6 and stay on legacy IPv4, especially when hosting, is pathetic. NAT, port forwarding, tunnels, blah blah blah blah.

I have something like ~1.2 trillion times the number of routable addresses that the entire IPv4 space has. Not all are reachable, of course, just the services that need incoming access and they're each on their own isolated DMZ.