Ok. Start with all new datacenters. Require them to be built with infrastructure that allows for throttling of servers to occur when the utilities want to throttle.
They want the data centers without having to build renewables. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy, but constrained by ideology. Electric rates and availability are a function of these factors.
This isn't good. Then again, the amount of power going in to these CPUs is way too high.
Take the AlphaServer DS25. It has wires going from the power supply harness to the motherboard that are thick enough to jump a car. The traces on the motherboard are so thick that pictures of the light reflecting off of them are nothing like a modern motherboard. The two CPUs take 64 watts each.
Now we have AMD CPUs that can take 170 watts? That's high, but if that's what the motherboards are supposed to be able to deliver, then the pins, socket and pads should have no problem with that.
Where's AMD's testing? Have they learned nothing watching Intel (almost literally) melt down?
> Take the AlphaServer DS25. It has wires going from the power supply harness to the motherboard that are thick enough to jump a car. The traces on the motherboard are so thick that pictures of the light reflecting off of them are nothing like a modern motherboard. The two CPUs take 64 watts each.
I am not involved in power VRM for modern moderboards. But I can imagine they are some some smart stuff like compensating for transport losses by increasing the voltage somewhat at the VRM so the designed voltage still outputs at the CPU. Of course this will cause some heating in the motherboard but it's probably easily controlled.
In the day of the alpha that kind of thing would have been science fiction so they had no alternative but to minimise losses. You can't use a static overvoltage because then when the load drops the voltage coming out will be too high (transport loss depends on current).
Also, in those days copper cost a fraction of what it costs now so with any problem just doing 'moah copper' was an easy solution. Especially on server hardware like the Alpha with big markup.
And server hardware is always overengineered of course. Precisely to prevent long-term load problems like this.
I guess I must be. Where did he "point out the difference between new and used"? All I see is "But newsflash: used is different than new", then the explicit declaration 'you can't say "Tiny PCs are cheaper than Raspberry Pis" based on used pricing versus new.'.
Serious question: You put Cloudflare between all your domains and all your visitors without looking in to how this would affect your site's reachability? If so, that's interesting, considering that many people in this community are negatively affected by Cloudflare because they're using Linux and/or some less than mainstream browser.
You might want to read some threads on here about Cloudflare.
Most of the time I don't use them for their network, usually just DNS records for mail because their interface is nicer than namecheap and gives me basic stats.
To my understanding, they aren't blocking MX records behind captchas
Dude, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said they weren't bad.
Some nicer people here tried the educative approach and it worked much better. I learned about Bunny. And I keep forgetting I have a few in deSec but that has a limit.
Unfortunately I don’t think they were participating in the conversation in good faith. People can have an extreme view on _anything_…even internet / tech. They buy into a dream of 100% open source, or “open internet”, or 100% decentralized, whatever.
When this happens they may be convinced that “others” are crazy for not sharing their utopian vision. And once this point is reached, they struggle to communicate with their peers or normal people effectively. They share their strong opinions without sharing important context (how they reached those opinions), they think the topic is black and white (because they feel so strongly about the topic), or they become hostile to others that are not sharing that vision.
You are their latest victim lol. Ignore them, and carry on.
You said one response up that they weren't parasites by asking how they were parasites and then proceeded to claim you have no experience with their parasitic services.
It's known the community here doesn't like Cloudflare, and anyone who's been on the customer end of Cloudflare would tend to agree. In that context, if you truly are blind to seeing this, when you said, "how is Cloudflare a parasite" to a group not liking of cloudflare... ... it may land as saying something like "How is Hitler a bad guy?", which I hope is self-evident is saying he's a good guy contextually, of course you could troll it out and devil's advocate yourself that you were merely asking an innocent question.
I thought Cloudflare overall was neutral - meaning as many haters as lovers. I know the CEO frequents here as well.
When I ask how is Cloudflare a "parasite" I was being genuine. I know it was a problem for some users, but I don't think I realized how prevalent it was
That's hopelessly naive. A "misconfiguration" is the excuse they use after the fact when there's enough outrage that they have to put things back the way they were.
I'm not being hopelessly naive. It's certainly possible that they took it down with the explicit intention of hiding information on the internet, but that would also be pretty stupid, since various articles have found the reports on other government servers. So I assume incompetence before malice.
What's already known is that they fired the staff who prepared the report, and are presumably shutting down the agency. Is it really surprising that someone might have turned off the webserver before transferring the domain?
Yes you are. If you’re arguing in good faith then you should try to answer this question:
How far does it have to go before you assume malice? Do they have to tell you “I am malicious”? And if someone malicious is using the “dont admit it” strategy are you fucked?
You are being repeatedly pummeled in the face by a gang of bullies and responding by pondering whether or not they may be continually assaulting you out of some kind of misunderstanding. lol
Did you read the article? The administration's excuse / explanation is that it's not illegal to remove data because it already exists elsewhere:
> said the information will be housed within NASA to comply with the law
So you think they'd accidentally misconfigure DNS, then explain that the site has been brought down because they comply with the law some other way? That doesn't make any sense, and suggesting this might just be a mistake in light of this information just makes you seem like an apologist.
"Claims that we’ve shifted this approach or policy are completely false."