kziemio

1. I don't have the problem of feel like Chrome being slow, and I don't hear this complaint much. The complexity of the web is not increasing as quickly as computers are increasing in power. This seems like a temporary and niche problem to be working on.

2. Reliable low latency streaming on wired connections is pretty straightforward, and should work fine. This is an easy problem.

3. Reliable low latency streaming on wireless connections is an unsolvable problem due to the nature of physics (basically), and will be an endless source of frustration. There's a reason no FPS gamer would ever play on wifi by choice. It will work fine at times and then randomly start sucking right as you're trying to do something important.

4. If it turns out this is useful in some cases, Google can easily do a better job than Mighty. And there's no reason this couldn't be done by AWS and Microsoft as well. It's trivial for a major tech company to do this better than Mighty does. They already built Stadia and the rest. Unlike when Dropbox launched, these companies aren't sleeping on stuff like this anymore.

Most DOCSIS 3 cable internet connections I've tested are under 10 ms round trip to the gateway. With consumer fiber, it's usually under 5 ms. These are far better than anything SpaceX will do.

PC gamers will want wired internet. Everyone else could probably do with deal with 80 ms without even noticing, so SpaceX will be very successful as long as it's affordable and reliable.

Neither of those are counter examples. Both had issues that have nothing to do with trying to live in a commune within the US, something that many groups have done successfully.

This "better example" would not exist on earth, so there's nothing useful to learn from it.

The US and USSR were equally powerful, playing the same game, with the same population. Ideology vs ideology. Capitalism won by a mile.

Because fundamentally the US isn't driven by an all-encompassing ideology. Capitalism doesn't dictate how every citizen live their life. It only describes how the economic system will work. Anyone inside the system is free to create their own enclave. If you want to move to Oregon to live on a commune, no capitalist commissar is there to stop you. Starting a capitalist enclave in a communist country would have had to sent to the gulag.

You spent four hours of your life thinking about a rich guy that likes to have sex with young women and underage girls?

At most, he was working for intelligence agencies creating blackmail material. Not even the story of the year, let alone the decade. Even if he was actually murdered in prison by powerful people or an intelligence agency it wouldn't be very interesting. There's no broad trend. No betrayal of public trust. Just run of the mill spy stuff.

The strongest result of the Epstein incident is that it will serve as a strong warning to powerful men not to put themselves in a compromising position.

The idea that a communist movement could have existed without KGB interference is equally absurd.

Communists in the USSR (and backed by the USSR) stole property on a vast scale and murdered or enslaved people by the millions. The CIA did many bad things but it is very hard to out-do the USSR on evil acts.

West vs East Germany was as good an experiment as anyone is likely to ever see. It was capitalism vs communism head-to-head. The communists had to build a wall to keep their enslaved population from escaping from a secret police controlled hellscape to what was (in comparison) a capitalist utopia.

The US is a fundamentally mercantile country that found out the hard way (through two world wars) that non-interference doesn't work. It very reluctantly adopted the role of world police.

In many ways it resembles the problems all policing forces face, which is that people tend to focus on the mistakes rather than the successes.

The people that spend time railing against US policing failures spend no time trumpeting its great many successes.

It's always easy to point the finger. It's much harder to explain how one would have done a better job solving such complex problems.

Because cable has improved enough that no consumers really needs fiber to their homes. You can get 300-1000 Mbps cable internet now in most places and it is far more than anyone really needs. Upload bandwidth is the main limitation of cable internet but that's not a major factor for most people.

If cable internet was still stuck at 25 Mbps or similar, the pressure for fiber internet would be a lot stronger.

But cable internet got good.

The backwards and scandalous aspect of modern American internet is that the ISPs managed to roll out 1 TB data caps without being blocked by lawmakers.