Ahh, right. I’ve made the classic mistake of thinking my usage was normative.

Interesting. We don’t upload many pictures, either; though admittedly I hadn’t thought about it, and that probably doubles my total.

I’ll have to check my math again. But are people uploading more than that? On my friend server, with 50 people, we’ve had about a dozen uploads all year, and they’re all pretty small PDFs and images. Everything else is rich links.

“Storage management is expensive”

It’s really not, though.

//////

ETA: I stick by my premise and my conclusion (storage management isn’t expensive, and it’s probably a Nitro thing), but my math may be wrong and my usage is apparently not normative. The costs are probably not so negligible, but I would still assume they aren’t as low as they want us to think.

/////

Discord has 200,000,000 MAU. If every single one of them uploaded a file every month (of pretty much any size) and Discord tossed it into an AWS S3 IA bucket, it would cost them $500 to store that data. Their total S3 bill for storage would be five hundred US dollars. Storage is dirt cheap. AWS doesn’t even charge per gigabyte on that storage type, it’s so cheap; they charge for downloads.

So, ok. Let’s talk downloads. If each of those files were 25GB and downloaded twice (probably an underestimate, but not everyone is uploading files, so I’m going to make the completely unfounded assumption that it’ll all shake out), it would cost them a couple hundred thousand dollars. Which, ok, that’s much more significant than $500. But Discord made $575 million last year—so the S3 download costs would be 0.03% of their total revenue. They probably spend 2-3 times more on coffee.

Storage management is emphatically not expensive.

My guess? They just saw that the higher upload limit was eating into their Nitro subscriptions.

I think the bigger issue is that IP rights can be held by corporations at all. Yes, it should be shorter, but it should also only be able to be owned by individuals.

Copyright and patents, at least. I guess trademarks make sense to be owned by companies.

“Well yes, but actually no”

Yeah, that’s pretty standard for the Y, but that’s the cost for everything–weights, track, courts, swimming pools, most classes, personal training, childcare. As opposed to Peloton, which is $50 for just the spinning class.

Most YMCA locations have cycle classes included with the membership.

That’s a good point. I didn’t think about that.

Pretty sure it’s black on transparent. Not the most visible, especially if your client makes the background black.

I just installed Linux Mint on a 15-year-old desktop that has never been upgraded and was middle-of-the-road when I got it. It shipped with Windows 7, and I tried a couple of times to upgrade to 10 (it failed every time, either losing core hardware functionality, running so slowly as to be unusable, or just refusing to boot altogether). But it runs Linux like a dream. Seriously—it’s easily running the latest version of Mint better than it ran an 11-year-old service pack of Windows 7.

What’s even crazier is that I installed VirtualBox on it, and put Windows 10 on that, to use some work programs. And that runs Windows 10 a bit slowly, but otherwise more or less flawlessly!

That’s right: I’m having a better Windows experience in Linux than I’ve ever had on baremetal Windows on this box.

I can’t believe I didn’t do this…well, 15 years ago.

I don’t think that’s what the op was arguing with. I think they were just saying that weight is not the first thing that needs optimized here.

In any case, not for the average person.

Definitely not for the “normie” then.

Ok, so I am not an expert, and I am not the OP. But my understanding is that Secure Boot is checking with a relatively small list of trustworthy signing certificates to make sure that the OS and hardware are what they claim to be on boot. One of those certificates belongs to a Microsoft application called Shim, which can be updated regularly as new stuff comes out. And technically you can whitelist other certificates, too, but I have no idea how you might do that.

The problem is, there’s no real way to get around the reality that you’re trusting Microsoft to not be compromised, to not go evil, to not misuse their ubiquity and position of trust as a way to depress competition, etc. It’s a single point of failure that’s presents a massive and very attractive target to attackers, since it could be used to intentionally do what CrowdStrike did accidentally last week.

And it’s not necessarily proven that it can do what it claims to do, either. In fact, it might be a quixotic and ultimately impossible task to try and prevent boot attacks from UEFI.

But OP might have other reasons in mind, I dunno.

Ah, nice. Thank you for bringing your expertise to my nonsense.

Someone elsewhere in the thread suggested it might be a marketing thing on Nvidia’s part, and that makes a lot of sense.

I think it’s doing some non-trivial amount of rendering, since it’s often syncing graphics with music played live.

Wikipedia says it’s 16,000x16,000 (which is way less than I thought). The way the math works, that’s 16x as big as a 4k monitor, so 16 GPUs would make sense. And there’s a screen inside and one outside, so double that. But I also can’t figure out why it needs five times that. Redundancy? Poor optimization? I dunno.

I’m not moving any goalposts at all. I’m expressing how inexperience and bad assumptions can make one’s searching unfruitful through no fault of their own. That’s all I’ve ever been saying.