Word of caution to anyone thinking of using this for pfsense: the realtek 2.5G drivers are not included in the pfsense image and have to be installed manually. A real pain if you don't have easy access to another freebsd machine.
In my experience Realtek network cards often leave a lot to be desired when used in a routing / firewalling / always on environment. I specifically make sure NICs are Intel based when configuring systems.
For the 2.5 Gbe NICs, apparently the Intel ones were also shit. They went through four revisions of I225-V to fix some issues. The latest intel one is I226-V which incorporates the previous fixes.
As a cyclist, I'm super excited about one day being run over by one of these things. The giant vehicle trend is getting a lot of people killed.
And why does any vehicle need to accelerate that quickly? It's irresponsible on public roads. I would really love to see acceleration and speed limiters on vehicles.
Not sure why you are so concerned with acceleration.... If you're on a bike, it doesnt matter if you get hit by a truck at 30, 45, or 60. You're most likely dead anyways, adnd if you survive, there is a good chance you wish you were dead.
at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.
thanks, that is very interesting data, i wonder how they collected it. i supposed if you are on a bike wearing a helmet these percentages all go down....
Why irresponsible? it is better to get to the desired speed quickly, it means less congestion and less distraction for vehicles behind you. Every driver should thrive to drive as fast as they can as long as it is not above the speed limit or road conditions.
Fast acceleration is nice occasionally, but driving aggressively in my EV nearly halves its range vs. carefully avoiding switching rapidly between charging and discharging the battery.
Also, fast acceleration from a stop eats tires. Some EV owners report 10-20k miles per (premium) set.
Two acceleration downsides with electric vehicles. Fast acceleration will wear out tires much faster. Also, the fuel/battery economy is poor. I know the Prius Prime will give you a driving score which is greatly reduced by fast acceleration. But I agree is it helpful to accelerate quickly when the light turns green to get more throughput through an intersection.
So the federal government wants to give these chip companies a bunch of money as long as they pinky promise to uphold the requirements of the bargain? Why does this situation sound familiar...
We should, at the very least, get some ownership of these companies in return for our investment, like any other private investor might.
I'm all for investing in these sorts of programs to bring manufacturing back to the US, but not like this.
> the federal government wants to give these chip companies a bunch of money as long as they pinky promise to uphold the requirements of the bargain?
This mischaracterizes the bill. There are a bunch of programs [1], ranging from funding the National Science Foundation to this thing [2]. (Much of the bill is a tax credit, which involves the government forking over no money up front.)
If you're concerned about grants, the Commerce Department is soliciting input for the coming rule making process [3][4].
I understand that there's a lot of other things in the bill; I'm not trying to dismiss that. But I think the big thing front and center is the desire of the government to bring chip manufacturing back to the states. That's what's driving the majority of the bill, it seems.
I love the idea of funding universities for prototyping and discovering new technologies, but the tech developed needs to be open to all, not locked behind a patent owned by MIT.
I don't see any functional difference in tax credits vs money up front. At the end of the day, the company reaps that benefit at the expense of our taxes.
I'll have to check out links 3 and 4 and see about sending in my comments, thank you.
The government has an implicit return on investment for the entire economy, through the power to levy taxes. Why should the government own stock in specific companies? The only likely outcome for that route is the government playing favorites even more so than at present
Why should tax dollars be sent to a private company without anything but a promise in exchange? The promise of "jobs" isn't enough, as evidenced by just about every single other time that these programs (including the tax cuts) happen. Further, how are we going to hold these companies accountable for their promise? What comes to mind immediately is when we gave telecoms a bunch of wire up rural America, and they purchased and consolidated the cell providers instead.
If we just write them a check, they'll do whatever they want with it. They need to be held accountable, and ownership percentage is a way to do that.
Alternatively, the gov could take this money, start up a corporation of their own, and make their own fab. The language in part of this bill is that they are trying to ensure that older tech and DoD stuff is made in house. So let's make it in house.
We don't necessarily need to say "we're buying intel or nvidia", but we can make the money available to any company in exchange for the ownership percentage. That eliminates the "playing favorites" issue, I would think.
Let's say Intel takes the deal and trades some ownership percentage for some funds to build more fabs. Suddenly the US government has a multi-billion dollar reason to provide political support for whatever is good for Intel. It's inherently favorable to incumbents who have the market share to make a favorable deal, regardless of whether or not those incumbents are best able to build world-class fabs.
The government has plenty of demand-side tools to on-shore development without hurting competition or playing favorites with large incumbents. The DoD and DoE are massive semiconductor purchasers and have a lot of leverage in the market who can adjust their procurement strategies to promote American interests. That's not entirely without the opportunity for corruption and grift either, but at least there's more accountability.
I mean, I think we basically agree that handouts to large semiconductor companies without anything in return is a bad idea.
> Suddenly the US government has a multi-billion dollar reason to provide political support for whatever is good for Intel.
That's one of the reasons we're doing this in the first place. National security is in the mix as well. What would actually change [edit: beyond citizens gaining ownership and some say in what happens]?
If we just write them a check, they'll do whatever they want with it. They need to be held accountable, and ownership percentage is a way to do that.
You could also just consider the grants to be loans that never need to be paid back as long as some set of concrete requirements is met by the company.
The federal government previously gave the telecom monopolists billions to build out nationwide fiber-optic internet infrastructure... and they just took the money and ran.
I don't see any language around how we're going to recover those funds, if they are not spent in ways that align with the requirements laid out in the bill. Did I miss that section? It is a pretty big bill.
I do see a section that would allow the suspension of new funds, if it's found that these companies aren't upholding the agreement. I don't think suspension of new funds is sufficient.
> don't see any language around how we're going to recover those funds, if they are not spent in ways that align with the requirements laid out in the bill
Implementation is left to the agencies. We're only seeing the Congress appropriating money. Contract specifics are being developed.
I mean, when the US government gives out money for student loans, the loan may be on very favorable terms, but it still expects repayment. It's only in business where we hand out money and don't expect it to ever be paid back.
I would agree that student loans shouldn't be that way either, but, we shouldn't be handing out money upfront without guarantees that the incentivized behavior will actually happen - the two things that come to mind are the 90's fiber rollout and the Foxconn subsidies in wisconsin, both of which the company took the money and then never actually built the infrastructure.
If there are going to be outright subsidies, they certainly need to be contingent on meeting milestones, and not just "pretty please build a plant, here's a big check to encourage you but no strings attached".
Think about how the US did the auto bailouts as well - we got a big chunk of equity that we eventually unwound on favorable terms, but we didn't just write a check and be done either. Same thing, maybe if TSMC wants a big grant for expansion, maybe the US should get a big chunk of equity (at guaranteed and favorable terms) and then if milestones are met the equity is again wound down at favorable terms such that the benefit of the "favorable terms" on both sides amounts to the subsidy.
As I understand it, even though the Foxconn deal was ill-conceived and wasted tax payer money via planning for the deal and funding foolish road projects, the deal does have milestones built in that resulted in not receiving the credit for at least the first few years. I also think the amounts in the deal have also been further diminished after failing to meet the original milestones.
That said, I was looking into it today and it looks like they have actually been meeting some sort of revised hiring target recently [1]. I have heard from some peers that the jobs they are hiring for are basically make-work jobs, but the deal doesn't care what they accomplish -- only how many "jobs" they create.
It's still shady crap which wasted tax payer money (not to mention abused eminent domain), but I don't think in any way involved a big check with no strings attached.
I want more than shares. Shares are meaningless when the rest of the shareholders vote to close the factories anyways when the profitable tax breaks end.
Partial ownership of the physical facilities and a say in the conditions therein then they can have the money.
The car-hate posts can be quite emotional for a number of (valid) reasons, but understand that reducing cars and car trips doesn't happen in a vacuum. No one is arguing to instantly and immediately eliminate every vehicle out there. It's part of a larger process to replace personal vehicles with transit, walk-ability, bike-ability, and generally car-free or car-reduced places where people live.
How old are the tracks and the cars? Anecdotally, the streetcars in Dublin are quiet and don't make any sort of racket. Same for the (single, sad) streetcar in Atlanta.
Streetcars (and buses) work best on dedicated or semi-dedicated routes. The problem with their reliability, in the case you describe, is the cars that are creating the traffic.
I'm sure poor track condition probably had a lot to do with it. With respect to reliability, I think buses and even trolley-buses have an advantage over streetcars in traffic because they can go around obstructions in the street, while streetcars really can't. Trolley-buses have to stay on roads with overhead lines of course, but they still have more lateral freedom than trolleys on rails.
Modern trolley-buses has a battery on board, which allows them to cover some sections without overhead lines. Automatic connection/disconnection of pantograph is the real problem.
Ideal world would be seeing the laws preventing municipally owned ISPs struck down. I'd also like the see the right of ways municipally owned as well, to better facilitate competition with new providers.
No offense personally, but the alternative to fuel burning cars is only cars with more toxic batteries that will pollute drinking water.
There are no honestly viable solutions currently on the market to our environmental crisis in place, it's just marketing to shift profit to another harmful money making industry.
Hauling a family of four on a bicycle to the hospital in a crisis in 2 feet of snow (for example) only goes further to highlight the small-mindedness our future is up against.
Public transport was crippled during the pandemic for obvious reasons... Let's not forget that.
Also during an earthquake/power outage scenario would likely do the same, and cause far more dramatic loss of life if it was the only option.
It's a hard sell to people who want to be free and independent, and in control of their safety and time.
Getting rid of cars also means eliminating a huge volume of revenue from federal, state, and local government from related taxes... This means funding for bike lanes, roads, and even public transport, would evaporate.
Most of the busses in many major cities were also once electric (at a very high cost to cities), but now (somehow) have mostly gone back to diesel... No one is asking Why...
We still have major factories, ships, planes, and many other big business hallmarks that create the majority of pollution in the world (while the same companies try to portray that they are "green"). Conservation efforts are futile unless we start talking about the real issues, and create accountability, not if we leave rules up to profit seeking individuals and companies.
It's beyond a hard sell at this point for many people, and contradictory to the concept of a free society.
Back when we had mostly horses providing transit, they consumed more energy than cars on an individual basis too, and created health problems with their waste...
It's all just shifting the buck somewhere else, and not solving real underlying problems.
> Public transport was crippled during the pandemic for obvious reasons... Let's not forget that.
A once a century event shouldn't define the other 98 years.
> Getting rid of cars also means eliminating a huge volume of revenue from federal, state, and local government from related taxes... This means funding for bike lanes, roads, and even public transport, would evaporate.
This is not an issue. If people aren't buying cars, they'll have more money that they'll spend on other things or we can just raise taxes because people have more money.
> We still have major factories, ships, planes, and many other big business hallmarks that create the majority of pollution in the world (while the same companies try to portray that they are "green"). Conservation efforts are futile unless we start talking about the real issues, and create accountability, not if we leave rules up to profit seeking individuals and companies.
We're never gonna solve climate change if we only focus on the biggest issues. It's multifaceted problem.
They have a huge problem with unexpected detonations.
One of the best things about vaping has been that I'm pretty sure that there are less unintentional home fires than in past decades, because when they are dropped on a mattress, they usually do not burn... Another aspect that no one really considers.
Hydride cells can be punctured, smoked near, smoked on, it's fine, it's also old technology. Just about any vehicle can be retrofitted for this, and can sequester the hydrogen overnight from the air.
