iso1631

Raw rushes are still available on the original disks/cards, but the project files and any renders were stored on a single location with no backup or snapshotting.

You'd have to redo everything from scratch. Maybe your editor/director remembers what they want so its a bit faster this time round, if they are available, but its still a lot of work to rebuild the edit.

I have never returned anything to amazon. Maybe it's a US culture thing.

Sending one ship will probably fail, but if you can send one, you can send 1000, and they aren't all going to be wiped out.

Once it becomes cheap enough then religious or similar cults will do it, and the cost of doing isn't a great deal more than colonising the solar system where are are economic benefits.

That assumes reaching 5 light years in say 50 years

However once it's done a few times, then it can't be stopped. If you're going at say 1/1000th of the speed of light (50 years to travel, 450 years to settle and build the next wave is 1% the speed of light) then your successor species will have colonised the galaxy in 100 million years, and we know that hasn't happened.

And crucially ensuring that beam continues to run for billions of years. a few decades may pass for you, but not for the laser that's pushing you

Some sites won't give you a link to download, and will force you to download via javascript and/or posts through the browser.

You then let it start, then cancel, right click, copy download link, then use wget on the machine you want the file on.

(Back in the days before tcp window scaling, I tended to use axel)

That would be group 2, not group 1

"Your passive income is enough to live"

Bill Gates certainly programmed at the start. At a point early on in Microsoft history he had to stop doing that and concentrate on actual business problems.

Part of divide and conquer from the owning class

There's three types of people

1) You rely on a paycheck to live

2) Your passive income is enough to live

3) You are so wealthy you can influence the world

Someone working for a 40k a year payslip, or even a 200k a year payslip, is likely in group 1. Someone with 5 million net worth is comfortably in group 2 - even at 3% in a savings account gives them an income way above people earning from labor. Both of those groups are so divorced from those whose wealth increases 5 million a year, or 5 million a month that they're basically the same.

At some point it ceases to be about money and being able to afford the things you want, and becomes power to control others.

The house is more desirable, evidenced from more people willing to spend more money in there. You benefit from the same things which make it desirable to other people.

It's still horrendous, especially at the top end of the market. It reduced movement on the 500k house which trickles down to the 300k where it's an annoyance and then to 150k houses where it doesn't exist other than slowing the current 150k occupiers from moving to 300k, which itself is really treacled because of the move from 300k to 500k.

It's also a major obstacle in the south east, especially for first time buyers

Increasing demand to live in the town.

Rents will have increased to reflect this increase in desirability, but you just expect to make a profit from it.

It's a transaction tax. Setting aside that there's typically a 2% cost on buying and selling a house in the UK anyway due to estate agents and legal costs, and the average house attracts another 1.5% in stamp duty it's not a major obstacle for the majority of transactions, but it's still friction.

It would be far better to replace with a %age tax whether you move or not, but wealthy people in the south east don't like the idea of taxes on unearned wealth.

It's a tax on sellers, with some of the proceeds going to FTBs

Lets say two people are after the same house, both are willing to spend 500k on it.

Person A: Next time buyer, has a budget of 500k after legal/moving costs, that leaves 14200 for stamp duty, and that means you can pay 485,500 (plus 14,275 stamp = 499,775).

Person B is an FTB, they have the same 500k budget but can bid upto 490k due to lower stamp

As such person B can bid 486k, thus offering more than Person A, getting the property.

If both were Next Time Buyers the seller would get 500 less

If both were FTBs the seller would get 4500 more

If there was no stamp duty they would both be able to pay 500k, the seller would get 14k more

Housing specifically (the building) is a liability -- it deprecates, it needs maintaining, just like a car. You pay that and you get utility out of it.

The land its on tends not to be a liability, it increases in value through no work on the owners side. Rarely it will decrease in immediate value, but that's very rare.

The increased land value is because the land is more desirable. If I buy some land next to a rubbish dump, it's cheap because living there is terrible. If the dump is then closed my land improves in value, and I derive value from that.

Likewise if I buy somewhere cheap in a backwater town, and the town becomes more desirable because there are better employment opportunities, better shops, better amenities, all of which serve to mean people will pay more for the land, then I benefit from that immediately.

They did not create the resource (the land), nor did the person they bought it from.

"Oh no, someone's given me an extra $500k for doing nothing which I'll get when I (or my kids) sell my house, how terrible"

> One way out could be to tax the value gain at the time of sale

Stamp duty in the UK, horrendous tax. It's better than nothing at offsetting the unearned increase in house (land) value, but far worse than a regular tax.

If you live somewhere for 10 years, then move, then repeat for 40 years, you pay far more than if you never move. This encourages people to live in less suitable houses for longer.

As to your worry about land values increasing -- the owner is deriving benefit. The higher the land value is, the more benefit the owner gets from the land.

You said your modelling needed "something on the order of 4000GWh of battery storage"

That's not outlandish given the cost of distributed batteries.

Are you upping that model?

(If you build more generation -- for example have renewable peak generation of 80GW rather than 40GW, that reduces storage requirements drastically, as on a dull quiet winter week where you're only getting 10%, you'd be generating 8GWh in a given period of time, instead of 4GWh)

Except the worst case demand has to be catered for -- overcast horrendous rain in winter with local solar producing near nothing yet local demand (EV, Oven, Heating, Shower) all running.

You don't get a benefit of reducing peak demand from on-building solar, so you can't do with smaller substations.

If you want low and deterministic latency between different devices then you'll need ptp

If your server is 100W that's 72kWh a month. If your electricity average is more than 7 cents an hour then it's cheaper to run a $5 server.

How does it differ to standards based systems like

https://github.com/bondagit/aes67-linux-daemon

Land is peanuts.

Expensive prime arable land in the UK is rentable for £200 per hectare per year. You can buy it for £20k a hectare (land value is far higher than usable value due to tax avoidance schemes -- nobody spends £20k on a field to rent it out for £200 a year)

But even if you buy 100 hectares of land for £2m, you then need to build your 60MW, which costs about £60m on top and generates 60GWh a year or £6m at 10p/unit

The land cost doesn't matter.

> For instance EV charging might be restricted in the future in such a winter black out scenario.

Or indeed when petrol runs out as happens occasionally (in 2022 most recently). Of course there's also the problem of gas supplies stopping

Last time I did the maths based on data from gridwatch the storage capacity required dropped dramatically if you over built the on the production side.

But ok, 30 million homes, 100kWh storage each, that's 3000 GWh

A 100kWh battery is about £25k, less than 1/10th the cost of the house, and less than the average new car

That doesn't seem unrealistic.

Well google.as has a CAA record of 24 hours now. I assume it had one before.

Therefore either

1) Letsencrypt ignore CAA records (unlikely)

2) The DNS hijackers removed the CAA record 12+ hours before doing their attack and google did not notice (I'd hope unlikely)

3) Letsencrypt querys did not return a cached CAA record because their resolvers had not been asked for it, so removing the CAA record a few minutes before hand worked.

> .com may be actively under attack please call this number on the old certificate, codeword banana-alpha-lima-lima-sigma

Do you seriously think this is an appropriate message to give to Aunt Irene?

Not when you simply remove the CAA record from the DNS entry

So looks like

1) Top level CC DNS entries were hacked

2) CAA entries were removed (I assume google had them -- they do now CAA 0 issue "pki.goog"

3) These were then used to verify issuing certificates against major CAs (letsencrypt etc) - for example by creating a new CNAME record for DNS verification

Looking at google.as specifically shows Let's Encrypt issuing a certificate on 2026-09-27

https://ctlogs.dev/search?q=google.as

Google normally issues certificates with "Google Trust Services", presumably their in house CA which all browsers trust, but the only way to limit issuing to Google is with the CAA record.

If you hijack DNS, you hijack certificate issuing. As several CAs exist with no business relationship to identify the real person asking for the certificate, you can do this anonymously. (If CAs required verification then you'd just have to chain this with the stolen credentials of someone who uses that CA so wouldn't be a major obstacle)

From what I can tell (and the article conflates this with the diginoir so implies it), this was NOT a compromise of a Certificate Authority