> * In theory, you can test this with an anemometer. In practice, I've not found a cheap one that will so much as _turn the prop_ under such a light load.
Hot wire anoemometer ? Given it's rapid response you could probably even measure the turbulence in the flow. Probably possible to DIY too
> I honestly don’t know why these things are so expensive. I’m guessing it’s a premium from the brand name, as well as quality assurance.
Being used mostly by medical (a small market with relatively rich companies) is the reason. It's a lot of testing to make proper one for not too massive market so the price is "eh, they can't be arsed to try to DIY that" basically
Worry about the leg-thick power cable not the pinky-thin fiber.
The cost of the fiber itself basically doesn't matter relative to a data center itself.
I see that you know nothing about anything involved. The cost of cable is essentially irrelevant in both cases, the "everything else" is the expensive part.
Power can be had from the closest high voltage line (and maybe even easier to get outside of the city)
The fiber have to be dragged from either nearest point of presence (a building with many fiber connections coming to it from multiple companies to exchange traffic), or to whatever dark fiber infrastructure is available nearby.
In city, that's usually not that hard, ISPs already "plumbed" most of the bigger cities with fiber infrastructure.
Middle of the boonies, where we want the datacenters to go ? Dig, dig dig, get permissions for digging, get permission from everything around the ride from city's fiber infrastructure to the place in middle of nowhere, months or years in getting permissions, and red tape anywhere. There is probably some power close enough, or at the very least you can find a location close to power, but location close to fiber will if anything be some existing industrial centre, and even that might not be a sure bet. You might get lucky and get a permission to use existing poles to drag some fiber on them, but it's still PITA
That's not really accurate: Firefox peaked somewhere around 30% market share back when IE was dominant, and then Chrome took over the top spot within a few years of launching.
FWIW, I think there's just no good move for Mozilla. They're competing against 3 of the biggest companies in the world who can cross-subsidise browser development as a loss-leader, and can push their own browsers as the defaults on their respective platforms. The most obvious way to make money from a browser - harvesting user data - is largely unavailable to them.
I would rather firefox release a paid browser with no AI, or at least everything Opt-In, and more user control than to see them stuff unwanted features on users.
I used firefox faithfully for a long time, but it's time for someone to take it out back and put it down.
Also, I switched to Waterfox about a year ago and I have no complaints. The very worst thing about it is that when it updates its very in your face about it, and that is such a small annoyance that its easily negligible.
Throw on an extension like Chrome Mask for those few websites that "require chrome" (as if that is an actual thing), a few privacy extensions, ecosia search, uBlacklist (to permablock certain sites from search results), and Content Farm Terminator to get rid of those mass produced slop sites that weasel their way into search results and you're going to have a much better experience than almost any other setup.
reply