But he is correct. If you have a large enough budget for new construction it can make any maintenance expenditure look tiny. The right figures to compare are normalized by length and age of track, not percentages of the total budget.
It’s still nonsense. Everyone doing FTTH is using passive optical networking (PON, or NGPON or XGPON or XGSPON or …) which actually has a line rate of 10Gbps. It then uses TDMA to give each subscriber enough time slots to send and receive at a particular speed. My ISP, Ziply Fiber, just gives every subscriber enough time slots to send at the advertised speed _after_ protocol overhead, even at gigabit and higher speeds. If you buy the 500 Mbps service it really will speed test at 500 Mbps. If you buy gigabit it really will test at 1000Mbps provided you have faster than gigabit Ethernet between you and the router. The router that they rent connects to the ONT at 10Gbps, so speed tests done on the router itself always test at the speed you’re subscribed to.
At 10Gbps and above they start using direct–attached fiber (DIA) instead, so the speed you subscribe to is the line rate and it will test lower due to protocol overhead. But if you can max out a 50Gbps link then I think the overhead will not bother you much.
They also allow residential customers to run BGP and use their own addresses. They’re a great ISP.
Which is a shame, because it puts a huge support burden on ISPs. Every time some WiFi interference slows someone’s internet down they’ll end up blaming the ISP and calling support.
It was more pleasant back then because people who flew were paying 10× more for the privilege. If you want that level of service today then simply buy a first–class ticket. You too can pay 10× as much for a marginal increase in quality.
No, use your eyes to look at _all_ the evidence. Yes, there was more leg room in the sixties, but the prices were a lot higher too. If you ignore the prices then you are ignoring evidence. If you fail to notice that most people could not afford to fly then you are also ignoring evidence.
Seems pretty obvious to me just from “four-player, four-monitor arena battle with full eight-way scrolling and AI drones for players not present”.
And it’s clarified with “As a social experience had it been released in 1986, this would have been the grandfather to games like Fortnight; a multiplayer PvP battle arena where each player was supposed to have their own dedicated set of controls and display.”
The main question I had was what was the form of combat. There was no mention of shooting. So what was it? Ramming? Lasers? Magnetism? Bullets? Turns out it is bullets. Boring.
But they did say "a four-player game that was said to resemble Sinistar" but it would have been more accurate to have said "it's literally a 4-player version of Sinistar" and I would have had zero remaining questions.
Sure, people have been putting different sprites on their projectiles for a long time. But whether it flies in a straight line, drops from the top of the screen, or follows a ballistic arc, a bullet is a bullet. It doesn’t matter what sprite you use.
And yet even Feanor was a “good guy” at one point in time. It wasn’t until many years after the invention of the palantiri that he went off the rails, and that was only after talking to Sauron for a while.
But I think that Feanor’s character is irrelevant. An evil person could create a tool that ends up being useful for good purposes. Tools are neutral; they don’t inherit the character of their creator or their user.
reply