Technology Random Access Thoughts

[ZLoth]

You might check memory prices around Black Friday. When I was building my computer, I was able to find a Black Friday deal on memory that was good enough I was able to put a truly obnoxious amount of it in there.

I sincerely doubt that server memory will have a Black Friday deal, and there is no need for expansion beyond 64GB. Look at how much is already being used by ZFS cache:



Most of my regular computers have 32 GB of memory already with the exception of my main box which has 64 GB. More than enough to meet my needs. 

See PC Gamer: You can watch RAM prices going up almost in real-time on Amazon and it's only likely to get worse.

Besides, what do you consider "truly obnoxious amount" of memory?

[Scott5114]

64 GB. But that seemed obnoxious because I was moving from a computer with something like 4 GB, which meant at the end there, I was having to manually manage memory like I was a C programmer, lest the out-of-memory killer be invoked. 64 GB seemed like I was splurging in comparison.

The only time I've run into the OOM killer on this machine was a week or so ago, when a webpage I visited tried to preload hundreds and hundreds of extremely-high-res photos for some reason, which caused Firefox to malloc itself to death.

[ZLoth]

64 GB. But that seemed obnoxious because I was moving from a computer with something like 4 GB, which meant at the end there, I was having to manually manage memory like I was a C programmer, lest the out-of-memory killer be invoked. 64 GB seemed like I was splurging in comparison.

64 GB is not an obnoxious amount, it just means that you are a power user.

Anyone remember the 32-bit operating system Windows XP? Back then, it seemed that 256 MB or 512 MB was commonplace, and 4GB, because of the pricing back them, was considered "obscene". By the time XP reached EOL, 4GB was easily accomplished. Now, 4GB isn't enough for Windows 11, with 8 GB being the absolutely bare minimum, 16GB being minimum recommended, 32GB being recommended, and 64GB being power user. Reason being... there is less memory swapping to the physical drive going on. Having said that, there is a point of diminishing returns.... the improvement noticed from going from 8 GB to 16 GB is more noticeable than going from 16 GB to 32 GB, while the improvement is hardly noticed on going from 32 GB to 64.

When I received my personal laptop last summer, I immediately did a memory check using CPU-Z and saw that only one of the two memory slots was populated. With the second 16GB being $44, it was a no brainer to get the memory module and expand it to 32GB. That should be more than enough to last the laptop especially with applications gaining more functionality at the cost of additional RAM consumed.

[vdeane]

The only time I've run into the OOM killer on this machine was a week or so ago, when a webpage I visited tried to preload hundreds and hundreds of extremely-high-res photos for some reason, which caused Firefox to malloc itself to death.

I don't know how Firefox does it, but Chrome (and all browsers based on it) tends to go OOM at 1-2 GB of memory usage for a tab regardless of how much the computer actually has available, and I could have sworn that amount shrunk recently, so it might be even smaller now.

Anyone remember the 32-bit operating system Windows XP? Back then, it seemed that 256 MB or 512 MB was commonplace, and 4GB, because of the pricing back them, was considered "obscene". By the time XP reached EOL, 4GB was easily accomplished. Now, 4GB isn't enough for Windows 11, with 8 GB being the absolutely bare minimum, 16GB being minimum recommended, 32GB being recommended, and 64GB being power user. Reason being... there is less memory swapping to the physical drive going on. Having said that, there is a point of diminishing returns.... the improvement noticed from going from 8 GB to 16 GB is more noticeable than going from 16 GB to 32 GB, while the improvement is hardly noticed on going from 32 GB to 64.

I do!  Heck, my calibration for how much RAM is needed was stuck in the Vista/7 era for a long time, with 4 GB feeling like a good amount and 8 GB feeling like a lot (kinda like how many people still have their sense for what prices should be calibrated for 2019).  It seemed weird that more would ever be needed, given that the desktop computer industry has seemed fairly stable for a decade now.  I guess it makes sense that swapping is less common, given how many laptops no longer use spinning hard drives any more and are 100% SSD, so the swapping would wear out the drive sooner.

[vdeane]

Looks like another blow for RSS.  Google and the other browser makers are moving to drop support for XSLT, which is the technology that's used to make them look like something and provide an explanation to users of what a RSS feed is and how they're used.  Otherwise, they look like an unfriendly raw XML blob.  I use it myself on my own site's RSS feed.  I'm not sure what I'm going to replace it with.

https://ppc.land/google-targets-rss-feeds-in-new-xslt-removal-proposal/

[ZLoth]

From Tom's Hardware:

Louvre heist reveals museum used 'LOUVRE' as password for its video surveillance, still has workstations with Windows 2000 - glaring security weaknesses revealed in previous report

The recent heist at the Louvre, in which jewelry worth around €88 million (US$101 million) was stolen from the museum in broad daylight, has revealed glaring weaknesses in the museum's security systems. According to the French publication Libération [machine translated], a security audit by the French National Agency for the Security of Information Systems (ANSSI) in 2014 reported that the museum's video surveillance system's password was 'LOUVRE.'

The same audit revealed that another system, built by defense and cybersecurity company Thales, used 'THALES' as its access credentials. Additionally, the museum's automation network also used computers that were equipped with Windows 2000 operating systems — making them vulnerable, as Microsoft stopped support for Windows 2000 in 2010.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[Scott5114]

The Louvre heist showed none of that—an audit done in 2014 did. I would hope they changed the password after that.

[kphoger]

The Louvre heist showed none of that—an audit done in 2014 did. I would hope they changed the password after that.

Probably to LOUVRE1.

[Rothman]

The Louvre heist showed none of that—an audit done in 2014 did. I would hope they changed the password after that.

Probably to LOUVRE1.

Come now.  Surely, LOUVRE!

[ZLoth]

From Ats Technica:

Ryanair tries forcing app downloads by eliminating paper boarding passes
Ryanair CEO admits "there'll be some teething problems."

Ryanair is trying to force users to download its mobile app by eliminating paper boarding passes, starting on November 12.

As announced in February and subsequently delayed from earlier start dates, Europe's biggest airline is moving to digital-only boarding passes, meaning customers will no longer be able to print physical ones. In order to access their boarding passes, Ryanair flyers will have to download Ryanair's app.

"Almost 100 percent of passengers have smartphones, and we want to move everybody onto that smartphone technology," Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary said recently on The Independent's daily travel podcast.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Ryanair is a low cost airline serving destinations in Europe. Some have described the airline as a customer-hostile version of Spirit Airlines.

[vdeane]

From Ats Technica:

Ryanair tries forcing app downloads by eliminating paper boarding passes
Ryanair CEO admits "there'll be some teething problems."

Ryanair is trying to force users to download its mobile app by eliminating paper boarding passes, starting on November 12.

As announced in February and subsequently delayed from earlier start dates, Europe's biggest airline is moving to digital-only boarding passes, meaning customers will no longer be able to print physical ones. In order to access their boarding passes, Ryanair flyers will have to download Ryanair's app.

"Almost 100 percent of passengers have smartphones, and we want to move everybody onto that smartphone technology," Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary said recently on The Independent's daily travel podcast.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Ryanair is a low cost airline serving destinations in Europe. Some have described the airline as a customer-hostile version of Spirit Airlines.

Requiring people to use an app for something should be illegal.  At least send them to people via email if you don't want to print paper.  Even people with smartphones might not want to download their app and shouldn't be forced to.  I know I don't want to load up my phone with apps; I even uninstall the vast majority of the ones that come with a new phone (I swear, it's worse than new PC/laptop bloatware ever was).

[kphoger]

From RyanAir's own website dedicated to this change:

What happens if I lose my smartphone or tablet?
If you have already checked-in online and your smartphone or tablet is lost, you will receive a free of charge boarding pass at the airport.

What happens if my smartphone or tablet dies before airport security?
If you have already checked-in online and your smartphone or tablet dies, you will receive a free of charge boarding pass at the airport.

What about passengers who don't have a smartphone or tablet?
If passengers don't have a smartphone or tablet, as long as they have already checked-in online before arriving at the airport, they will receive a free of charge boarding pass at the airport. However, they will not be able to access real-time flight updates or benefit from enhanced customer service during any flight disruptions.

Something tells me that, if you tell them at the ticket counter that you don't have a smartphone or tablet, then they aren't going to search you first before printing you a boarding pass.  Then again, it is RyanAir...

[Scott5114]

Requiring people to use an app for something should be illegal.

Based on everything I've heard about it, Ryanair should be illegal.

[ZLoth]

Requiring people to use an app for something should be illegal.  At least send them to people via email if you don't want to print paper.  Even people with smartphones might not want to download their app and shouldn't be forced to.

Ryanair is a European airline which emphasizes on CHEAP. (Where is that Comic Sans font when you need it?) Noone is forcing you to use a particular airline, but you do have to play by that airline's rules. There are people who are more than willing to put on a rainbow wig, white face paint, and a large red nose if it meant flying coast-to-coast for $9.

Lets also talk about items where the functionality is only with the app, and there is no desktop application or web page to access security videos on a desktop.

I know I don't want to load up my phone with apps; I even uninstall the vast majority of the ones that come with a new phone (I swear, it's worse than new PC/laptop bloatware ever was).

Are you talking about removing about a dozen pre-installed games that you won't play at all? That's what I experienced when I got a 5G tablet last spring... which I promptly uninstalled because of the microtransactions that have contaminated all of those games.

[vdeane]

Ryanair is a European airline which emphasizes on CHEAP. (Where is that Comic Sans font when you need it?) Noone is forcing you to use a particular airline, but you do have to play by that airline's rules. There are people who are more than willing to put on a rainbow wig, white face paint, and a large red nose if it meant flying coast-to-coast for $9.

Lets also talk about items where the functionality is only with the app, and there is no desktop application or web page to access security videos on a desktop.

Once one airline does it, others will follow.  Just look at the headphone jack in smartphones.  And yes, those other things would fall under the way I think it should be illegal (let's appreciate that online dating being app-only is likely one of the reasons I will be forever alone).

Are you talking about removing about a dozen pre-installed games that you won't play at all? That's what I experienced when I got a 5G tablet last spring... which I promptly uninstalled because of the microtransactions that have contaminated all of those games.

It was more than a dozen, but yes, among other things.  Too bad Facebook can only be disabled and not removed (same with Google Assistant and a few other things).

[Scott5114]

Once one airline does it, others will follow.  Just look at the headphone jack in smartphones.

Eh, in this case, I don't think so. Ryanair is basically an Frontier/Spirit/Allegiant type airline taken to an even further extreme. The business model is to offer extremely cheap fares in exchange for nickel and diming you over every little frill. Even something like Southwest is a step up from that, and the American/United/Delta type airlines are courting an entirely different type of higher-end customer who would never consider flying something like Frontier and never tolerate those sort of shenanigans.

(let's appreciate that online dating being app-only is likely one of the reasons I will be forever alone)

Those who have access to online dating are not doing any better—typical Silicon Valley enshittification has hit pretty hard in that market. Consider that if the app is successful in leading to a monogamous relationship, the user will stop using it, and the incentive for the platform to descend into antipatterns is even stronger than for other categories of app.

Most recent dating advice I've seen has suggested that apps are such a lost cause that they advocate for returning to more traditional means of dating.

[ZLoth]

From EuroNews:

Portugal warns Ryanair cannot refuse passengers with paper boarding passes
FULL ARTICLE HERE

[Bruce]

Ryanair (and other ULCCs) do allow folks to print boarding passes...if they pony up the fee to get checked in by an agent.

According to the BBC article, they did drop the previous £20 fee for printing a boarding pass at the airport if you checked in online. Still abhorrent and should be swiftly shot down by regulators for being blatantly anti-consumer.

[vdeane]

Most recent dating advice I've seen has suggested that apps are such a lost cause that they advocate for returning to more traditional means of dating.

Of course, that requires that one naturally encounter people as they go about their life and have the social skills necessary to tell if someone's interested and to get to know that person.  To say nothing of other complicating factors (being LGBT, etc.).

[ModernDayWarrior]

Most recent dating advice I've seen has suggested that apps are such a lost cause that they advocate for returning to more traditional means of dating.

Of course, that requires that one naturally encounter people as they go about their life and have the social skills necessary to tell if someone's interested and to get to know that person.  To say nothing of other complicating factors (being LGBT, etc.).

Admittedly it has been many years since I used an online dating service, so it's possible this is no longer true. That said, I always had much better luck with dating sites that were "specialized" in some way (i.e. they catered to people with a specific lifestyle and/or interest) than general services like match.com or eHarmony. That way, at least you know you have one thing in common right off the bat and can sort through your matches from there. Not going to post publicly the service I used (though I would tell someone if they asked) and I certainly had plenty of bad experiences but a number of good ones as well.

Sadly I doubt there are enough of us in the roadgeek community for a specialized roadgeek dating service. Though it would bring a whole new meaning to the term "road meet." 

[Scott5114]

Most recent dating advice I've seen has suggested that apps are such a lost cause that they advocate for returning to more traditional means of dating.

Of course, that requires that one naturally encounter people as they go about their life and have the social skills necessary to tell if someone's interested and to get to know that person.  To say nothing of other complicating factors (being LGBT, etc.).

Basically the only way to make it happen is to intentionally structure your life in such a way that you naturally encounter people (and not a stream of random people, but the same people, repeatedly, such that you have a shared experience because you've just straight-up been there for the same things). This is traditionally what bars were for (and lots of people get away with using church for the same purpose), but you could substitute something like an activity group or becoming a regular at a game store or something like that.

Similar considerations exist when trying to make friends in a new city. The difficulty I have run into is that because I was an only child growing up in a rural area, all of my naturally-developed hobbies and interests are solo endeavors. So I don't have much of a chance of running into a potential local friend unless I artificially pretend I'm into playing kickball or something like that. That being said there are a couple of guys at the gym I go to who I've talked to often enough that we know the basics of each other's lives and interests, although I don't know any of them well enough to hang out with them outside of the gym or anything like that. But that kind of reinforces the idea that starting a human relationship of any sort is mostly a matter of just consistently being at the same time and public place so that people recognize you as a fixed point they can connect to.

Heck, that's even how this forum works; we all have various degrees of friendship here because we see the same names over and over and we all get to know each other. That's why it feels like more of a community, as opposed to somewhere like Reddit where there's a million people who feel more or less interchangeable since the username is in tiny letters in the corner of each post.

Sadly I doubt there are enough of us in the roadgeek community for a specialized roadgeek dating service. Though it would bring a whole new meaning to the term "road meet." 

There's certainly not enough volume to justify an entire service based on that, but I think there would be worse ideas than trying to date a fellow roadgeek if you found one who lived reasonably close and you found attractive. A short daytrip to clinch nearby stuff has the same structure as an ideal date (adequately long periods to talk to get to know each other better, split up by intermittent bursts of activity to provide shared experiences).

[GaryV]

Basically the only way to make it happen is to intentionally structure your life in such a way that you naturally encounter people (and not a stream of random people, but the same people, repeatedly, such that you have a shared experience because you've just straight-up been there for the same things).

Two docents at the zoo got married recently.

[kphoger]

let's appreciate that online dating being app-only is likely one of the reasons I will be forever alone

My wife and I met online a few years before either of us had even heard of smartphones—and when an app was still something you ordered ahead of your meal at a restaurant.

more traditional means of dating.

Of course, that requires that one naturally encounter people as they go about their life and have the social skills necessary to tell if someone's interested and to get to know that person.

Basically the only way to make it happen is to intentionally structure your life in such a way that you naturally encounter people (and not a stream of random people, but the same people, repeatedly, such that you have a shared experience because you've just straight-up been there for the same things).

This is very insightful.  Not to "encounter" a stream of people, but rather to have a pool of people in your life large enough (the pool, not necessarily the people) to draw from.  And the "in your life" part matters.  Shared interests or experiences or situations.  It's by spending time with people and actually having conversations that we find out who we like and who we don't—and that goes not just for romantic interests, but friends in general.  Good food for thought.

This is traditionally what bars were for (and lots of people get away with using church for the same purpose), but you could substitute something like an activity group or becoming a regular at a game store or something like that.

When my daughter's mom and I broke up way back in the early 00s, and I was starting to get depressed and desperate to find someone to settle down with, I asked a co-worker where I could find a wife.  That's how I phrased it, too:

— Where can I find a wife?
— Church.
— That takes too long.  Where can I find a wife faster?
— *pause* ... The internet?

So that's what I ended up doing.  I went to the library one evening to use the internet, looked at several different sites, and settled on one.  I signed up for a free seven-day trial account and filled out a profile.  Only one person ever contacted me, and I'm the only one she contacted.  We figured out a way around the filter that prevented sharing e-mail addresses, exchanged e-mails for a little bit, then moved to phone calls shortly thereafter.  The first couple of phone calls were really awkward, but then the wall broke down and the conversation floodwaters rushed in.  The first time we met face to face was when she picked me up at the bus station in Springfield MO a couple of months later.  We're now coming up on our 20th wedding anniversary.

Similar considerations exist when trying to make friends in a new city. The difficulty I have run into is that because I was an only child growing up in a rural area, all of my naturally-developed hobbies and interests are solo endeavors. So I don't have much of a chance of running into a potential local friend unless I artificially pretend I'm into playing kickball or something like that.

I grew up in a small town too, as you know.  My dad was pastor at two congregations, one in town and one out in the country.  At the country church, I think only one member wasn't somehow (if only distantly) related to everyone else.  But by the time I met my wife, I was living in suburban Chicago.

My wife is from Branson.  Her issue was that she knew everyone in her church so well that they were like brothers to her—so much like brothers, in fact, that she didn't want to even consider any of them romantically.  But going to a bar or something in Branson would have presented her with two basic pools of guys:  (1) tourists, who didn't even live there;  (2) rednecks. 

That being said there are a couple of guys at the gym I go to who I've talked to often enough that we know the basics of each other's lives and interests, although I don't know any of them well enough to hang out with them outside of the gym or anything like that. But that kind of reinforces the idea that starting a human relationship of any sort is mostly a matter of just consistently being at the same time and public place so that people recognize you as a fixed point they can connect to.

I sometimes wish someone, anyone would give each other so much as a smile and a nod at the gym—let alone actually start a conversation.  It's such an anti-social place in my eyes, with everyone wearing headphones and half of them staring into their phones.  My wife says people don't come to talk, they come to work out.  But what's wrong with doing both?

I always had much better luck with dating sites that were "specialized" in some way (i.e. they catered to people with a specific lifestyle and/or interest) than general services like match.com or eHarmony. That way, at least you know you have one thing in common right off the bat and can sort through your matches from there.

The site that my wife and I met on was a Christian one.  I remember it being called something similar to christiansoulmates.com, but that doesn't appear to exist.  The most similar one I can find is christiansoulmate.com (not plural), so maybe that's it.  Anyway, that site says right on the Who Are We? page:  "We believe the future of online dating lies in sites being tailored to particular interests, hobbies, or clearly specified member needs..."

A friend of mine from back then also met her husband online, and that site was specifically for Lutherans.  They were both also serious Trekkies.  They're still married too.

But I don't know what other types of "niche" dating sites are out there.

Sadly I doubt there are enough of us in the roadgeek community for a specialized roadgeek dating service.

There's certainly not enough volume to justify an entire service based on that

I wonder what the male:female ratio would be.

[hotdogPi]

I wonder what the male:female ratio would be.

I have a spreadsheet of this. While the forum stats page showed something close to 15:1, it just counted registered members, many of whom haven't made any posts.

Of the 481 forum members with at least 282 posts (there are 505) where I know their gender, there are five cis women (one being a lesbian), six trans women, three nonbinary, and everyone else is male. This doesn't take into account who is active and who hasn't posted in years.

[kphoger]

I wonder what the male:female ratio would be.

I have a spreadsheet of this. While the forum stats page showed something close to 15:1, it just counted registered members, many of whom haven't made any posts.

Of the 481 forum members with at least 282 posts (there are 505) where I know their gender, there are five cis women (one being a lesbian), six trans women, three nonbinary, and everyone else is male. This doesn't take into account who is active and who hasn't posted in years.

Then the obvious factor would be how many males vs females in roadgeekdom would actually sign up on a dating site.


But this is not the question that really needs to be answered.  What we really need to answer is this:  What would we name a roadgeek dating site?