It would be useful if the technology ever isn't absurdly cost prohibitive. Some uses off the top of my head:

- GPU cards without discrete VRAM powered entirely by unified memory
- CXL cards to add more memory
- AI accelerator cards

There was literally just an article "Google is Using AI Age Checks To Lock Down User Accounts". From what I remember one of the AI protections EU offers I actually agree with is prohibitions on exactly this sort of automated black box judgement.

There are two kinds of people. Those who don't understand the difference between dispatchable and non-dispatchable energy and those who are unable to accept the implications.

You can't provide any credible modeling that says you can shift to wind/solar exclusively and do so cheaper than inclusion of a substantial contingent of nuclear. The reason you can't do so is your position is entirely without merit.

The issue of CO2 concentrations on human health has been the subject of extensive study by both military and civilian agencies spanning decades. There is still nothing to support the notion public health is endangered by CO2 levels that could ever reasonably be anticipated as a consequence of human activity. Submarines for example routinely have CO2 concentrations 20x that of current outdoor average with no ill effects observed. The studies I'm aware of that noted superficial effects indicated they are temporary and pass after a brief acclimation period.

Your confusion with regards to ventilation is understandable and widespread. Recommendations from ASHRE et el. with respect to ventilation and CO2 are based on the use of CO2 as a **PROXY** for reasoning about the general load of indoor air pollution as a function of human occupancy vs air exchanges. CO2 is easy and cheap to measure while direct measurements of the legions of possible indoor pollutants which actually have valid health concerns are not.

The relevant context is of course not merely a single word. It is overall statement in the text of the legislation "pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". So yes I very much stand by my "poisonous shit" remarks.

How does one even go about extracting such conclusions from my statement? I've neither offered or implied any such comparisons of impacts. It is telling when people can't even quote a complete sentence and must resort to injecting context that didn't even exist in the first place.

No shit Sherlock. While you are off in your own world responding to a strawman of your own invention this does bring up an interesting hypothetical.

Let's say car exhaust released pheromones that resulted in people having more sex. As a result the earths population increased and with it climate change. Would such emissions therefore endanger public health or welfare?

It is telling to see text from the 60s reinterpreted to include climate change in the 2000's. Personally I think the text was obviously intended to address pollution (poisonous shit) that directly endangers public health......not contributes to global changes in the earths climate that can then endanger public health or welfare.

Personally I think the reinterpretation in the 2000s was wrong and opportunistic. If people think green house gases like those emitted as a result of breathing are harmful to public health due to contributions to climate change and they want regulation to that effect then lawmakers should vote on legislation to implement such regulation.

If one political faction is allowed to intrepret legislation one way it is hard to care about hurt feelings when another faction comes in and is allowed to reinterpret it in another. I am not addressing the merits of the underlying issue only my view that the process being utilized here sucks.

Bluetooth is good for about a half mile LOS in ideal conditions using coded PHY. Not nearly as good as LoRa but not terrible.

If you want secure local communications for example a cruise ship (WiFi), airplane or camping in BFE Briar is a good option... Bluetooth coded PHY isn't terrible. Otherwise I agree Meshtastic is a better fit for longer range and the hardware is basically free.

Now we are getting closer to reality. Of course it hurts. It costs more money, adds unnecessary latency and there are new burdens in the form of controls, payment, management portals and vendor maintenance windows.

Nice, so if I just plop my website content on someone else's web server they are running for me I don't have to worry about it. This begs the question what such a sentiment has to do with the statement "Simply switching to someone else's servers accomplishes none of the above" how does one presume "websites" from my statement?

So does every Linux distro.

What you say is not credible, the provider has no way of knowing what your software does, whether it is patched or not or has known vulnerabilities. All they can do is auto update the underlying OS the same as would be done with any Linux distro.

We have some customers using AWS and it shocking how out of date their VM images are. Some of them using Amazon Linux don't even have systemd support. I remember having to patch our system to not be fooled by Amazon's half assed head fake where they pretend to have some systemd files for "compatibility" without actually supporting it. What a clusterfuck.

This is nonsense, to get any useful administrative benefits you need to move from running your own software to using someone else's service otherwise it is no different than any of your run of the mill Linux distros with auto update.

Simply switching to someone else's servers accomplishes none of the above.

I have one web server, one domain and there is one URL to access my website. How would I deploy this technology? If a useful answer can't be provided to this question then the technology clearly isn't deployable by everyone.

This scheme works for those in a position to be able to hide multiple identities behind a single platform like hosting providers and cloudflares of the world. It does nothing useful for a single self-hosted site.

The draft in the editor queue is entitled "TLS Encrypted Client Hello" this is ECH which I already addressed and is a radically thing than ESNI.

ESNI was deployable by everyone, ECH is for large providers.

You are citing an experimental draft that expired April 25, 2019 nobody has bothered to so much as renew for 6 years. When you find proof of life for ESNI please do mention it here.