SlowBro's comments

I was reminded that Google Cloud offers a free forever 1GB RAM server with 1GB of network egress. In the US, additional egress costs $0.02/GB. A server sending 5KB/data every hour of every day for 30 days will cost you about 25 cents a month :-)

I've been looking into how to survive low bandwidth/high latency/frequent disconnecting internet, because we may need to save money at home and temporarily switch to an unlimited 2G speed (64kbit) cell data plan as our primary internet for a few months. (Red Pocket's $7/mo. 1GB GSMA plan paid annually.) Not only is Red Pocket notoriously bad at limiting both bandwidth and are horrible with latency, we also live far from the closest cell tower, so our reception is also poor and frequently disconnects. A one-two-three punch for a bad internet experience.

This is probably about as close to experiencing an Antarctic data satellite connection within the continental US as is possible, and would be even worse than a 56k modem; While the bandwidth is roughly the same, Red Pocket users often report latencies in excess of 1000+ms, whereas 56k modem latency was typically under 200ms. The frequent disconnects (because we're far from the tower) would simulate Antarctic conditions, as well.

So how do internet-connected people living in 2024 survive such an atrocity?

First, we would leverage SSH and CLI tools as much as possible. Brow.sh and Carbonyl browser for web and Mutt for email. Mosh.sh to keep the SSH connection alive and reconnect automatically on reconnect--even if your IP changes. (Mosh is incredible.) Some terminals have a zoom feature (ctrl++ or - in kitty) which may help if some web browser item is just too difficult to see in its blocky resolution. See also the Carbonyl --bitmap and --zoom flags: https://github.com/fathyb/carbonyl/releases/tag/v0.0.3

The youtube-dl command can fetch tiny versions of a video on a server (even audio-only if we don't care about the video portion such as with long-form interviews), then transcode them on the server to the smallest-tolerable bitrate. rsync them home overnight and watch them the next day. rsync can retry on failure: rsync --partial --progress --compress-choice=STR, --zc=zlib --compress-level=9 --rsh=ssh user@host:remote_file local_file

Edit: On second thought, rsync doesn't perform well in high-latency environments due to TCP acks, but something like uftp which uses UDP should do better, and offers resume. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38014501/what-is-the-fas... https://uftp-multicast.sourceforge.net/ https://sourceforge.net/p/uftp-multicast/discussion/general/...

Needs a remote Linux server, but ServerHunter has servers adequate for the task for less than $3/mo. Focus on RAM; Most any plan has sufficient hard drive space and speed, sufficient bandwidth and CPU for what you're doing. You're not serving large content to many demanding customers, and in my personal testing I have found that even 1GB RAM should be enough--but obviously more is better. And many companies only charge for data egress--which should be smaller than ingress. Data ingress to the server is usually free, and when you're downloading large amounts of data to the server, then compressing them, egress is much smaller. Choose companies that have a domain age of at least 1 year old; I've had a fly-by-night company take my money and run. (PayPal reimbursed me.)

To download large files, try first compressing them; Although, depending on the original file, compression can either give you no advantage or even _increase_ the file size. Try different compression methods; bzip2, zpaq, xz, lzma, etc. ls -l the before and after to see if it helped any.

Also, we'd rely on phones apps for things like Gmail/Facebook/Messenger/WhatsApp/Telegram/Twitter/Discord/etc. This saves always redownloading JavaScript for each visit. While there are Windows/Linux desktop clients for these, they usually are only thin layer over a browser, which means they still download JavaScript and large images on every use. But a phone app has everything it needs all the time--until the next app update, of course. Can temporarily disable app updates, but I wouldn't do that for long. The good part about app updates is they can tolerate slow links and frequent disconnects. And we often take our phones with us to high-bandwidth locations, so we can do app updates there and disable them over cell data. The article said on some days Antarctica has better bandwidth availability, so you could halt updates until conditions improve.

Same with Windows or Linux OS auto-updates; Disable them until bandwidth conditions improve. (But you're probably already doing that.) Edit: After reading the article again, yes they definitely are doing that, and are still having problems. Bummer.

Installing Bluestacks is an option, for the above reason. Using phone apps on the desktop that don't need to download JavaScript on every use could bridge the gap somewhat. Disable its auto-updates as well.

Gmail can be set up for IMAP or POP3. Try both; POP should give a better experience, but by default it removes messages on the server, so look for that setting to disable it if you want to keep them there. I believe you can disable downloading attachments and images automatically, which probably works better for IMAP? Not sure if POP can handle this. Doing it this way means you don't need to load the web interface any time you check mail, and you'll only be reading the text content of emails. It should therefore work through Mutt as well.

Then there's browser tricks for local rendering: Disable graphic images and disable media autoplay. uBlock Origin to reduce overall download size. Turn off JavaScript until truly needed. Pain in the butt, but it works.

In Windows, set your network connection to metered. This should help. (And back in the US, we can set our phones to low bandwidth mode--but that would only help users on cell networks; I'm sure the south pole lacks cell reception.)

You're not going to be gaming with large downloads and patches, nor will you be competing with low-latency gamers around the globe. But not all games need these. Play against the computer instead of other people. Play only pre-downloaded or DVD-based games. Or go back to the 90s and set up a LAN party and play against one another in the same room. We love Unreal Tournament 1999 GOTY; Plays blisteringly fast on any computer, is cheap to buy on DVD or Steam, has no in-game paid-for upgrades, has oodles and oodles of maps for download, and gameplay still feels fresh even 25 years later. Card games and offline phone games are king in low bandwidth environments.

You're probably not going to make many audio or video calls, so learn to send mp4s or mp3s to others back and forth by email. Use the lowest-tolerable bitrate. A 6Kbps OPUS/32Kbps AV1 video is about 5KB/sec and is clear enough to follow along, and would certainly be acceptable for a video message. A 0.5Kbps OPUS-encrypted audio file is surprisingly understandable, if not very enjoyable. But to get the message across, it works. A 6Kbps OPUS audio sounds like telephone quality to my ears. https://heavydeck.net/post/64k-is-enough-for-video/

Remember that 24-64kbit audio streams are still a thing. Search low bandwidth streaming radio. Sort by bitrate: https://directory.shoutcast.com/ https://directory.shoutcast.com/?q=299_Talk_297

I don't know if podcast apps have a low-bandwidth option, but it's worth investigating. Apparently the Player FM Pro app compresses pods on their servers before sending.

There are a few text-only news sites: https://blog.wturrell.co.uk/text-only-news-websites/

RSS feeds can fetch news over a slow link, and they're still a thing: https://rss.feedspot.com/world_news_rss_feeds/

Finally, there's the possibility of running a remote desktop session: Something like RDP over SSH, VNC over SSH, NoMachine's NX, TeamViewer, etc. Can give clearer detail than brow.sh and can sometimes be faster than browsing locally. I tested it by intentionally limiting my desktop's speed to 5KB/sec and while it wasn't fun, it got the job done. Took about ten seconds to paint a page on a 1GB VM, but that can often be faster than rendering a JavaScript-heavy page locally. Seems to be a good compromise for certain situations when the rest of the options fail you.

Typing is too laggy (5 seconds before characters appeared) but one way around that is to type into a file via SSH then cat the file on the server, paste that into the web form. Or write your notes to a file on your local system and copy+paste that directly in. I've found that even a server with 1GB RAM is sufficient for even this task, as long as you're only looking at one web page at a time. No multiple tabs. I ran XFCE4 on Ubuntu 22.04 and Google's official Chrome package. Resized the connection to 1024x768, which I consider to be the minimum for useful browsing. Changed the quality settings to lowest, color depth to lowest, etc. Disabled audio and printing.

To read large pages offline, print to PDF on the server inside RDP/VNC and download that with rsync.

The combination of all of these should help us get through a season of needing to save money, and it may very well save the day in Antarctica, as well.

> Ok so tell me more about how building LAX was "make work".

No, I'm asking if that's what you're proposing for the 21st century. What projects would you have be initiated that would fill the gap of some roughly 60% of unemployment, in the case of most cities on that map?

Back in 2002 I built an LFS on a 400 MHz HP desktop with 256MB of RAM. Took about eight hours. It was quite a learning experience, to see Linux's guts all put together. I highly recommend it to everyone :-) Don't use a 400 MHz machine tho...

Automation in farming has made calories cheaper. Who in the United States is really starving?

Sounds like you're proposing makework programs? Wouldn't they use more automation to build roads and airports?

But the question is whether automation across all sectors would free up all kinds of pursuits, not just programming. Maybe that wasn't clear in my question, but that's what I was proposing.

105 years ago in the United States, there wasn't.[1]

So it sounds like you believe the current level of tax take is sufficient and we needn't press for more?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United...

How many of today’s politicians have the conviction and perseverance of Roosevelt? Especially in the face of donors?

I can’t see that bubble being sustained.

“...were high”

What you did there. I see it.

YouTube and free SDKs, IDEs, and cheap servers are quite a democratizer.

But is it true to say that automation would fail to free up higher pursuits because there is a shortage of programmers? What would you be doing right now if there were no electricity?

But there’s a huge difference between making a moral case for taxing the wealthy, and making it possible to tax the wealthy, isn’t there?

Equality, comrade.

Could that success be repeated in the 21st century? If so, how?

Apparently the answer is, more than is being paid now.

Who would pass these capital gains taxes? Politicians, right? The same ones who can be influenced by lobbyists?

When these laws are passed, will assets be sheltered by accountants?

I know a Bitcoin millionaire. He avoided capital gains taxes this year by upgrading his Jeep. The money that would have gone to taxes, he used instead for upgrades, because of a loophole that permits upgrades to be taxed at a much lower rate.

They’re smart, the rich.

Does anyone here believe the top 1% and 10% are being taxed enough? The most oft-expressed opinion I’ve seen, even expressed below, is that the rich don’t pay enough as a percentage of their income.

> If, say, US would pass laws that allow them to tax everything that touches/ does business with a wealthy individual - that would make it very hard for said individual to avoid taxes

Who would pass these laws; politicians, right? The same politicians who are influenced by lobbyists, right?

You might then outlaw lobbying but the wealthy would just find another way to bring influence, wouldn’t they?

Would a land value tax be priced on farms as well? I wouldn’t think so, else you risk pricing farmers out of business. Have you noticed how many wealthy people own vineyards? Put some greenhouses on it and call it a farm.

The wealthy are clever, or they can hire some downright clever people to help them. Better solutions are needed.