Very impressive build! It's amazing what one can do thanks to CNC and FLPCB manufacturing services readily available to any motivated hacker.
One tip for the author who noticed the camera being warm: measure its power consumption, and compare to an unmodified G9ii. Especially because you noticed it drains the battery relatively quickly(!) This is a glaring "connect the dots" situation to me. The root cause might be something very stupid. For example when you removed the microphone jack, the camera thought a microphone was connected, so it activated a microphone nenu. But given the extensive number of mods you made, it's possible you are making the firmware think some accessory is connected—could be anything: (light) flash, external screen, USB gadget, JTAG reader, SD card, etc. So it's taking a code path to initialize the device, but it fails because the device is not present, and it retries repeatedly, thus entering a retry loop that's causing excessive CPU usage... That wouldn't surprise me. You are running a G9ii that's unique therefore a rare software code path like this would not happen on a standard G9ii and would never have been fixed by the developers.
Edit: I see the author measured power here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/comments/1oif3jp/how_much_doe... and to my eyes, these seem really high numbers. For example in video playback mode he measures 340mA, so 2.45W (battery is 7.2V nominal). The standard G9ii battery is 16Wh that means it would last only 6.5 hours playing back video. Compare this to a Pixel 9 phone: 18.3Wh battery and can playback video for 15 hours (I believe these are benchmark numbers reported playing back 4k H264 video, probably in a similar-ish format to the G9ii in terms of bitrate, etc). Plus the phone is at a disadvantage as it has a bigger, more power-hungry display. So it seems to me his G9ii consumes twice as much power as it should, if not more... If anything a pro camera should be more optimized than a general-purpose consumer device when playing video!
996 is a work schedule that derives its name from its requirement that workers clock in from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm, 6 days per week, resulting in employees working 12 hours per day and 72 hours per week.
I'm not in the startup scene or the US but I've come to understand this as 6 days a week of working 9am-9pm - typical hustle virtue-signalling nonsense and/or the latest move to exploit/shame/scare driven/desperate people to sacrifice their lives unsustainably for the wealth creation of others (and I take the comment you were replying to was criticising this as well).
"Bitcoin's security inevitably weakens over the coming years due to diminishing miner rewards (denominated in BTC)"
That's incorrect. Security scales with USD-denominated rewards, not BTC-denominated. And there are 16 years of real-world data showing they have been generally increasing, so a healthy sign that the Bitcoin experiment is working:
And not only that, but rewards are still expected to stabilize even when measured in BTC (thereby not relying on an increase of BTC's price) as they are progressively composed more and more of tx fees instead of newly mined BTC.
It's puzzling to me why some still don't understand the systemic incentives that make all this work as it has for 16 years and counting...
> It's puzzling to me why some still don't understand the systemic incentives...
Then I guess you're the type who will be really surprised to learn that with diminishing rewards comes increasing consolidation.
> ... that make all this work as it has for 16 years and counting...
That's convenient way to memory hole the market flash crashes, network forks, the blocks mined without consensus, and everything bad that happened over that timeframe.
Is a store of value that requires a significant fraction of it be eaten up by transaction fees to maintain security going to be actually useful in the long term?
With regards to transaction fees, bitcoin is already not particularly useful today. It can make sense to be used as an alternative to wire transfers where you only occasionally send a transaction, but it isn't useful as a currency and any day to day transactions have to happen off chain and not use bitcoin at all.
transaction fees are not increasing though, so they can't offset miner rewards. they have been in the $100k-$200k per day range for a long time, with only occasional breakouts: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/transaction-fees-... and the trend is not to the upside. in fact with the arrival of ETFs in 2024 the trend is clearly downwards.
Making up a bigger fraction doesn't mean that transaction fees will increase over time.
For L1 fees to actually increase over time, we need increased L1 throughput. Without that, increased demand for transactions causes more batching of transactions (mostly between exchanges).
Given the failure of BCH for pseudo-religious reasons I don't have much hope.
But transaction fees reset to zero on each block. If relying solely on transaction fees, why would you mine if they are zero? So, on the start of each block, miners will shutdown, or perhaps switch to a different currency where it would be profitable to mine. This surely weakens the security of Bitcoin.
"On the subway, I'm missing a lot of my normal setup [...] I don't even have an internet connection"
There is no cellular data in the NYC subway? I had to look it up online and apparently there is but coverage is quite patchy. That's very surprising to learn, NYC being one of the most developped and richest cities in the world. By comparison, and from my experience, the Parisian metro has excellent coverage.
Thanks for this CDC link! So the pedestrian death rate and the overall road traffic death rate is about three times higher in the US compared to other high-income countries... Mind-boggling.
Only way to change that it to shame them for it: "Cloudflare is so incompetent at detecting and managing outages that even their simple status page is unable to be accurate"
If enough high-ranked customers report this feedback...
That's awesome, and impressive you were able to build that. As an angel investor, my first question would be: how do you deal with financial fraud? Like users exploiting your app for money laundering via donations then spending... Any system that lets money get in and out is eventually used as a channel by launderers.
"Yet, EU vehicle safety regulations have supported a 36% reduction in European road deaths since 2010. By contrast, road deaths in the US over the same period increased 30%"
I thought this stark difference might be partially explained by US population increasing more quickly than EU. However it turns out in the 2010-2024 period, US population increased by +10% while EU27 pop increased +2%. So although there is a minor 8% difference, this is far, very far, from explaining the stark difference even if we compared per capita. The EU is certainly doing something right here.
There's a lot going on there, and it's not just vehicle design. Many countries have brought in reduced speed limits in urban areas, usually 30km/h, for instance. Your chances of dying if hit by a car at 30km/h are dramatically lower than 60km/h. Many countries also took the opportunity of COVID (roads not busy, construction industries in need of life-support) to improve cycling infrastructure. And rush-hour traffic is usually not as bad as it was, due to WFH.
In Ireland, public transport usage now is also much bigger share of commutes than pre-covid, particularly in Dublin, though I'm not sure if that's due to local factors or if it's replicated across Europe.
I wish we'd look at traffic speeds rather than speed limits since compliance varies widely depending upon the country and speed limit but I suspect that data isn't as available.
Decreasing limits to 30km/h in urban areas generally didn't actually change _mean_ traffic speed very much; urban traffic is on average pretty slow anyway.
Shrodingers dead person. You don't actually know until you know what policy position you're gonna use the dead guy to advance.
Usually road deaths is all deaths and pedestrians get split out as a sub category. Primary sources and academic papers are typicaly good. Analysis thereof almost always has a policy it's trying to advance and will frequently mix and match to that end. Internet comments are worse still.
Minor nitpick, it seems the report is dealing mainly with the period up until 2020, not 2024. Not sure if it makes a significant difference for your numbers, but maybe adjust them?
"the NAS in idle consumes more power than my UNAS Pro with 4x8TB HDD and 2X8TB SSD, as well as a Mac mini M1 with a 2TB Samsung T7 SSD, and my 4 access points and 4 protect cameras combined."
I know that's not true. I say this as someone who measures the power consumption of individual components, and even individual rails with a clamp meter. The OP measures an idle power of 67W. He has 6 x 8TB HDDs. These typically consume 5W idling (not spun down). So the OP's NAS without drives is probably around 37W.
A UNAS Pro without drives reportedly consumes 20W with no drives. Adding 4 x 8TB at 5W per drive, means your UNAS Pro config with drives probably idles at 40W (again, drives not spun down). That means you are 17W under his NAS idle power. So you claim your remaining hardware (Mac mini, 4 APs, 4 cameras) run in under 17W... Yeah that's not possible. 17W is peanuts; it's half the power of a phone's fast charger (~30W).
PS: for the OP, an easy way to further reduce power consumption is to replace your 500W PSU with a smaller one, like 250-300W which is still amply over-specced for your build. Because the typical efficiency curve of a PSU drops sharply at very low loads. For example at idle when your NAS pulls 67W from the wall it's very probable it supplies only ~50W to the internal components, so it's running at 10% load and it's only 50/67 = 75% efficient. The smallest load for which the 80 Plus Gold standard requires a minimum efficiency is 20%. If you downgrade to a 250W PSU you are enforcing a minimum 20% load for which the 80 Plus Gold standard requires minimum 87% efficiency. The load at the wall would thus drop to 50/.87 = 57W thereby saving you 10W.
96W is what's reported at the wall including everything. The switch reports 36W PoE consumption The Mac Mini is 5-6W, and the UNAS Pro around 35W with drives (4xHDD, 2xSSD).
So ~75W in total for everything PoE, Mac Mini and UNAS Pro. I was 8.5W over, so remove the Mac Mini from the equation.
The rest of the consumption (21W) is made up of a UDM Pro with a 4TB WD Red, USW Pro Max 16 POE, Hue Bridge, Tado Bridge, Homey Pro, and a Unifi UPS Tower.
and yes, that's at idle (drives spinning). It does rise to 120-130W when everything is doing "something".
As I suspected :-) Also note that by measuring "36W POE consumption" you are excluding the AC-DC conversion losses from the switch's PSU which further makes the comparison a bit unfair. IOW your POE equipment draws more than 36W at the wall.
The only fair comparison is looking as only your NAS idling with drives (35W you claim, and I still believe it's closer to 40W) vs the OP's NAS with 4 drives (which should be 57W, or 67W minus 10W for his two extra drives). Then if the OP used a better sized PSU he might cut out another 10W or so (see my "PS" above) then you are comparing your 35W (or 40W) with his 47W which of course is still in your favor and a testament that Ubiquiti did a great job optimizing the UNAS Pro. But this 12W (or 7W) difference hardly matters for someone running a single NAS at their house. This extra power is around $1 or $2 monthly at average US domestic electricity rates.
"by measuring "36W POE consumption" you are excluding the AC-DC conversion losses from the switch's PSU which further makes the comparison a bit unfair. IOW your POE equipment draws more than 36W at the wall."
I'm aware of that, but the wall measurement is still 96W before the UPS, so it's basically just pushing numbers around the same budget. The switch is the only place i have to measure "poe power consumption", so i quoted that number.
"35W you claim, and I still believe it's closer to 40W"
I have 4 x 8TB WD Red Plus drives in there, quoted by WD to be consuming 3.4W idle, so 4x3.4 = 13.6W, and a couple of Samsung QVO 8TB drives, which idles at ~45mW. Assuming the UNAS pulls 20W by itself, adding the drives lands us at 33.7W, right in the ballpark of my measured 35W.
Part of my "astonishment" was also that i run my entire "infrastructure" for 30W more than OPs NAS idles at (66.7W vs 96W).
And yes, 7W is probably peanuts, but when you're paying €0.35/kWh, it all adds up. I came from a full self hosted setup, proxmox, multiple NAS boxes, etc, and was using ~350W idle, when power spiked in 2022 to €$1.12/kWh (peak pricing, 17-21, with an average price some days of €1/kWh). I initially turned everything off, and with just the Mac mini, router, switch, APs, cameras, various hubs, i was at 67W.
The UNAS has been added since (after power prices stabilized), which took the idle power consumption to 96W. And no, the UNAS is not pulling 29W. I've removed a couple of cameras, replaced a couple of APs, even removed an AP, so it's not direct comparison, other than in terms of total power consumption for price comparison.
