• 2 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • I switched from an I3-530, nominal TDP 73W, to an N-100, nominal TDP 7W, and power from the wall didn’t change at all. Even the i3 ran around 0.1 CPU load, except when transcoding, and I’m left with the impression that most of the power goes into HDDs, RAM, maybe fans, and PS losses. My sense is that the best way to decrease homelab power use is to minimize the number of devices. Start with your seyrver at 60W, add a WAP at 10-15W, maybe a switch at 10-15W… Not because of the CPUs, necessarily, but because every CPU every CPU comes with systems to keep the CPU going, keep the power regulated, etc.





  • My first server was a single-core Pentium - maybe even 486 - desktop I got from university surplus. That started a train of upgrading my server to the old desktop every 5-or-so years, which meant the server was typically 5-10 years old. The last system was pretty power-hungry, though, so the latest upgrade was an N100/16 GB/120 GB system SSD.

    I have hopes that the N100 will last 10 years, but I’m at the point where it wouldn’t be awful to add a low-cost, low-power computer to my tech upgrade cycle. Old hardware is definitely a great way to start a self-hosting journey.









  • Before the War, you want your bunker to be open and easily accessible, so you don’t have to go hunting for keys or struggle to remember a passphrase when the missiles come over the horizon. After the War, you want your valuables to be inside the bunker, so you can use your Tiffany broach to buy grain from the raiders. So, all your valuables need to be in the open bunker, but secure from pre-War thieves. Definitely need a vault in your vault.




  • tburkhol@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldThe only good billionaire
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    They probably do not get the same tax cuts: a “normal” person, making a paltry $250,000/year only reduces taxes by 24% of their giving, where the ultra-rich get 37%.

    But the real difference is scale. A million people each giving $100 to their favorite charity is going to distribute that money more-or-less according to the community’s overall priorities. One person giving $100M to their favorite charity has no connection to the broader community and social goals. They supercharge that one thing, which takes attention and resources from everything else.


  • tburkhol@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldThe only good billionaire
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    4 - High-end philanthropy is subsidized by regular taxpayers.

    I feel like this is really under-appreciated. Like, Rich Dude decides he wants to donate $100M to…whatever - early childhood education. In the US, he avoids up to $37M taxes, which you can either look at as other taxpayers making $37M matching donation or $37M taken from other society objectives.

    To the extent that government is a (marginally) publicly accountable system for funding a society’s competing goals - education, health, defense, research - charity allows the very wealthy not just to bypass the social structure for prioritizing goals, but to force other taxpayers to adopt their personal priorities. Maybe the goal is good, maybe it’s not - the point is that they’re completely unaccountable.



  • 1200 sf townhouse. I can clean it top to bottom under an hour. It takes 5 minutes to mow the lawn. Only time my electric bill tops $100 is August, and gas only in January. No one even thinks about you hosting family gatherings or parties. Don’t have to buy a monster TV so you can see it across the 20’ room.

    I suppose, if you really like gardening, or hosting parties, then those could be negatives, but it seems like the main reason to have a big, fancy house is so other people know you can afford a big, fancy house. Personally, they make me uncomfortable, and I would hate to live in one, nevermind the maintenance.