The same tailscale that announced last week that they are going to start charging?

https://tailscale.com/kb/1251/pricing-faq

I went over and looked at the peertube FAQ and nope, there’s no monetization plan. Their reasoning for that is consistent with their goals but it is a hurdle to creators moving to the platform.

When are they moving all to freetube or something?

Unless I’m missing something Freetube is a client. So it wouldn’t be Jeff moving to freetube it would be you using freetube to watch his content on YT.

I’m guessing you meant peertube instead of freetube and your answer there is “When they can get paid.” Making content takes time and costs money and YT pays creators like Jeff for doing it.

I dislike YT alot but there’s financial decisions at play here that can’t really be argued with.

The car they’re describing is from the late 80s / 90s when “freeway speed” was just 55MPH (at least here in the United States). If car travel was forced to be any slower than that people would simply fly everywhere.

A common trip for me back then was 630 miles one way and at 55MPH it was 11 1/2 hours. If you lowered the speed just 5MPH it would take nearly 13 hours!

At that point I would have just gotten on a damn plane as 13 hours (likely longer with fuel stops) is simply too damned long.

Oh wow, that explains why so many of the new Audis look worse than they used to!

I would argue that it is already the case that cheap cars look and perform excellently, compared with cars produced fifty years ago.

50 years? Try 30 and even 20 could be argued.

Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.

The person I was replying too didn’t mention Left or Right and neither did I.

It’s a false equivalency.

Silencing your ideological opponents is ethically and morally inferior and I don’t care what your supposed motivation is.

My ideological opponents are already silencing speech.

Uh huh. I can fire up Social Media and find endless content openly discussing the entire spectrum of Political,Cultural, and Economic beliefs. Nearly all of that is openly discussed on Mainstream Media as well. You aren’t being silenced.

As long as fascists exist they must be silenced.

Define “fascist”.

When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak…

Which is precisely what you yourself are proposing. Congratulations, you are rubbing elbows with the very people you claim to despise.

If you do not tolerate dissent then you are ethically and morally inferior.

Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?

Yes, but have you considered the outcome of everyone doing this?

Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.

Mmmmm, yes. All ideological opponents should be silenced. This is clearly the way.

Seriously, if this is what you believe then you are clearly stating that you have no interest in a Free Society. You are literally placing yourself in the same group with every other Tyrant, Authoritarian, and Fascists who needs to be resisted.

Free Societies must tolerate dissent, it is a foundational requirement.

Trump’s 1st term.

Really? 'Cuz there’s two Audi execs in prison over this in the US right now.

I always forget about this perk of my Amazon subscription so thanks for posting this. I jumped over and claimed all the GOG codes. I’ve never tried the Lego games using Proton so I hope they work.

“Game-Key Cards” so it’s a licensing dongle with a fancy name and peculiar shape.

It is fun, but it’s much smaller than I imagined.

It’s a product of its time. Oblivion’s game size was right at the 4.7G limit of what would fit on single layer DVD-5.

Oblivion Gates

Ugh, arguably the most boring and repetitive part of the game. Such a wasted opportunity too as they could have made each Oblivion gate be a hellscape mirror of the area that it spawned in (including towns). That would have been a fairly small amount of additional data for a huge gain in game play.

They suck, don’t do any more of them then you have too.

There is no comparison between a top of the line SGI workstation from 1993-1995 and a gaming rig built in 2025. The 2025 Gaming Rig is literal orders of magnitude more powerful.

In 1993 the very best that SGI could sell you was an Onyx RealityEngine2 that cost an eye-watering $250,000 in 1993 money ($553,000 today).

A full spec breakdown would be boring and difficult but the best you could do in a “deskside” configuration is 4 x single core MIPS processors, either R4400 at 295Mhz or R10000 at 195Mhz with something like 2GB of memory. The RE2 system could maybe pull 500 Megaflops.

A 2025 Gaming Rig can have a 12 core (or more) processor clocked at 5Ghz and 64GB of RAM. An Nvidia 4060 is rated for 230 Gigaflops.

A modern Gaming Rig absolutely, completely, and totally curb stomps anything SGI could build in the early-mid 90s. The performance delta is so wide it’s difficult to adequately express it. The way that Pixar got it done was by having a whole bunch of SGI systems working together but 30 years of advancements in hardware, software, and math have nearly, if not completely, erased even that advantage.

If a single modern gaming rig can’t replace all of the Pixar SGI stations combined it’s got to be very close.

I’m GenX, my entire childhood was dangerous.

You should also be changing with time to take advantage of such technological growth.

Whoo boy that’s funny, thanks for the chuckle. I’ve been technology professional so long that I literally predate NAT. To say that I’ve changed with the time would be an understatement.

TVs are admittedly geared towards single wide screen tasks like the obvious: media consumption.

Huh, media consumption. You mean like Lemmy or any other web media?

That’s what additional monitors can be used for; but the point is with a single wide monitor you don’t have to run a second monitor.

Here’s where we diverge and despite considering the issue for several hours now I’m still not sure if this is a generational issue or something else. Obviously I’m from the time before widescreen and it looks like to me like you’re trying to use a workaround (multiple windows on a single screen) to justify what is objectively a downgrade in display technology.

You are in essence saying “Yes I know the monitor doesn’t have enough vertical space but you are supposed to use the extra horizontal space to overcome that.” I am going to counter by saying that computer monitors shouldn’t be 16x9, that’s a TV / Movie format forced into the computer industry by display makers who wanted to leverage their investment in television panels to produce cheap computer monitors. In short you are forcing yourself to find ways to work around display tech that doesn’t fit the use case; the screen is wider than it needs to be while not being tall enough.

Amusingly I was discussing this with a peer about an hour ago and he brought up ultra wide monitors like the Samsung Odyssey QD-OLED G9 (5120x1440) and after looking at it we decided that a monitor with the same physical width (48") but double the physical height (20" vs 40") and double the horizontal resolution (2880) would be near perfect. With such a monitor there would be so much real estate that app windows would stay large enough to be readable while still being capable of displaying lots of data vertically.

You could mount one vertically, you could use different sized displays, you could stack them.

Ahhh, now we hit the rub. I do a lot of remote GUI work and what I’m dropping into expects widescreen and uses all of it. Downscaling that into an app window makes the problem worse because it leaves large areas unused horizontally and there’s still not enough vertical. I could flip a monitor to portrait but then it’s too narrow to be handled correctly because what was a lack of vertical resolution has now become a lack of horizontal resolution. This is another symptom of 16:19 being a bad aspect ratio for computer displays.

Be your own person.

This person is seriously considering a pair of frameless ultra widescreen displays in a vertical stack. Expensive AF but potentially oh so usable.

You do you with multiple app windows squished to fit into today’s displays. If it works for you then it works for you.

Enjoy your day.

Saying “You’re using it wrong” is blaming the user for using the computer the way it was presented out of the box.

It’s also the way we’ve used computers for nearly fifty years and the way we interact with every other display in our lives. As examples almost no one uses less than the full wide of their TV, Smart Phone, or Tablet. There’s no reasons that computer displays should be any different and they weren’t until pretty recently.

If you’re using anything full screen, you’re doing it wrong

I’ll make sure to start watching YT videos in tiny little boxes like we did in the 90s and 2000s. 😜

I have 3 curved monitors in the home office. Left monitor is browser, center monitor is primary task, right monitor is comms or secondary task. I can’t track more than three things at a time anyway and I bought these big ol’ curved monitors for a reason.

This is how computer monitors have been used since I first touched an Apple II+ in 1980. It’s how you use every other display in your life. The problem isn’t with people using apps full screen.

Stop making a single browser window full screen and use the additional space on the side for something useful.

So stop using monitors the way I’ve been using them since 1982? Stop using them the way that literally every other screen I interact with functions?

A chat application, a notepad, a calculator, file browsing, a second browser window, documents, etc.

That’s what 2nd and 3rd monitors are for.

Or rotate the display to be tall instead of wide if you really want the extra vertical space.

That’s not so easy when you’re using multiple curved monitors with a stand or mount.

I get what you’re saying, I really do, but from my point of view it’s incorrect. It breaks the usage paradigm that’s been in place since these things were invented and there’s no other screens in our lives where we intentionally use less than the full width available for a single task.