You can root certain models of robot vacuums and then ssh into them. Most run some variant of linux. Then just install tailscale. There are a few blogs out there of people who have done it[0][1].
It's taking a cloud-based product, de-clouding it, and then connecting it to your own private 'cloud'. Pretty cool all things told.
What is it about HN that overwhelms small servers like this? It was a small static page so I wouldn't think it'd be that much load on the server itself, even for an OrangePi like this one.
Too many simultaneous connections for his router maybe? Or too much bandwidth for his internet connection?
If they are behind a NAT/ stateful firewall there is just so much connections it will handle at once. I think OpenWRT has like 16K max by default, f.ex. So for less than 16K requests by different users/IPs… each is kept for about 1 minute I think… it quickly will go down, I guess. :)
With OpenWRT we can increase the limit, if needed. But it's a delicate process you need to balance out carefully depending on your router. I doubled my slots and it works fine:
It's done via /etc/sysctl.conf
> net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max=32768
Afterwards "sysctl -p" to apply/ reload the config file. But increasing blindly is a bad idea… it needs to be done with ip_conntrack_buckets in sync for proper balance (memory use, CPU usage). Best to read upon it.
But just going from 16K to 32K shouldn't be any problem for most routers these days.
fair point, however I suspect that if you narrow the scope of the data to the US (even the data from those surveys) it will not change the results much.
Out of curiosity, I'm looking for data that is limited to the US, and will respond with results if I find them.
Based on my calculations from that data (extracting only the US responses, based on their entries for 'os_devenv', I get these numbers:
- Linux: 45%
- Windows: 58.9 %
- Mac: 51.2 %
That is conclusive enough for me to say that Windows is still the most common daily driver for developers in the US. I'm not one of those developers, as I don't use Windows as my primary development platform.
I suspect this may be a case where people tend to think that because most developers they know use a particular OS for development, that must be true everywhere.
I would not be surprised, for instance, to find out that the numbers of developers primarily using Macs at some big tech companies is much higher.
This is a technical decision some developers make because they're well versed in Javascript, or because their business can only fund the management of one codebase, or because there's libraries that add massive convenience functions to their development. Or because they believe that their UI needs to have a consistent experience. Or <insert reason X, Y, Z here>...
This whole article is about Chromium and Electron. I am not sure what the purpose of your question is.
Right, but still doesn't explain why 4 billions instead of 1 or 10.
I think the OP was expecting something like "we value the company at 8 billions because reasons, so we want to fund for half of it" or something like that.
I don't know how this argument can hold? Malls charge their tenant stores a fee to lease space. Why shouldn't app stores?
I use an application that supports plugins from 3P developers. The number of times some script is broken because a certain developer fat fingered their own config drives me mad. Whereas the experience of downloading apps from the Play Store is seamless.
The problem is with "rent seeking" where the amount taken is not related to service provided but rather ownership of the platform. If Google only collected for the Play Service usage that would be one thing, but they can also take a cut of ongoing subscriptions. You could also argue that updates are also provided as a service, but the amounts collected aren't in line with the service that's provided.
One way to ensure equity of service/fee is to have competition. There is no reasonable Play Store competitor for Android.
I understand why you are using the words "rent seeking", but that's a defined term with a meaning which differs from what you're trying to describe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
>"Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing political bribery, and potential national decline. "
But Google actually is rent seeking by the economic description. The poster is just accusing google of a 'lesser charge' by misunderstanding the concept, they should fix their accusation of what Google is doing not change the term.
Charging for access to your products, or taking a cut for sales which take place in your 'virtual store' does not involve any social or political manipulation.
Is all fine and dandy the Mall analogy except that the are only 2 'Malls' in the world. Apple Store and Google Play Store. That kind of leverage has never existed before in the history of this world economy.
Unlike google play, malls don't prevent their visitors to buy the same goods from stores outside the malls. Google play protect is known to remove apps installed from another source (e.g. fdroid) if the app is also available from google play: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37879935
> I don't know how this argument can hold? Malls charge their tenant stores a fee to lease space. Why shouldn't app stores?
Most of us don't object to Google charging a fee for each app sale (although I still think 30% is exorbitant). But they charge a fee for every transaction the app charges and I think that's absolutely obscene. The mall doesn't charge the shoe shop 30% of every pair of shoes they sell.
And what's the excuse for Google getting a cut of every book an e-book reader sells? Or every monthly charge from a subscription based video service like Nebula?
I don't think the comment implied that it was the "raison d'etre". A company who has employees on the road should strive to make them follow the law. If the vehicles are owned by corporation XYZ, the drivers are employed by corporation XYZ -- it stands to reason that they should ensure that laws are followed. e.g. that the drivers have valid licenses, they are authorized for employment in the region they are employed, etc.
Why should following speed limits trigger this train of thought?
reply