I got one from Amazon. A 32-thread Ryzen 9 7945HX, along with a motherboard, CPU cooler, case, and PSU for $400. But I didn't trust the PSU, so I bought a better one, replaced the thermal paste with PTM 7950, and replaced the CPU fan with a Noctua.
I also had to buy SODIMM DDR5 RAM modules (just before prices skyrocketed, I got 64 GB for $180), a 2 TB Samsung NVMe SSD, and an RTX 5060. The CPU comes with an integrated GPU, but I disabled it to get better cooling.
I also wanted to replace the CPU cooler with a Noctua one, but the GPU sits too close to the CPU. Maybe someday I'll adapt a liquid-cooling radiator, but that would require 3D printing a custom adapter and making multiple trips to a 3D printing shop for trial and error. That's too much hassle.
I get that a lot of folks were traumatised by the shift from init based systems to systemd. However the architecture is sound and relatively straightforward given the inherent complexity in managing a diversity of system processes.
EDITED TO ADD:
If you’re looking for a UNIX anti-hero regarding “do one thing and do it well” (that predates systemd), look no further than emacs.
Yeah, well, the Unix philosophy is from the engineering department, not the accounting department.
Funding FOSS projects without advertising, dopamine-hacking, donation-begging into the void, or being subsidized by billionaires that want to influence the electorate is still largely unsolved.
The problem isn't that we don't know how (solved issue: UBI, higher pay for less work, high marginal income tax rate, unrealized capital gains tax above a minimum, land tax, etc.).
The problem isn't even the billionaires.
The problem is convincing comfortable, ambitious middle-high earners to put a cap on their and their bosses' prospects in exchange for the stability (and subsequent ground preparation for innovation) of a higher floor.
They're the stumbling block because they're the ones who, on balance and en masse, have the money and votng power to excuse and enable the status quo.
> The problem isn't that we don't know how (solved issue: UBI, higher pay for less work, high marginal income tax rate, unrealized capital gains tax above a minimum, land tax, etc.).
Part of the problem is that there are people who think all rather than only some of those things are a good idea.
High marginal tax rates and taxing unrealized gains are both unintended consequences factories. Especially the second one, but even the first one is basically a trade off between creating perverse incentives and arbitrage opportunities (i.e. massive loopholes) because the high rates don't apply to everything, or supercharging offshoring because the high rates do apply to everything.
Conversely, a UBI is a good idea, and doesn't actually require oppressive tax rates because it replaces most of the existing system of government benefits and subsidies -- which impose even higher de facto marginal tax rates on most of the middle class in the form of benefits phase outs. US federal spending is already >$20,000 per capita.
Not all of that is assistance programs, but a large proportion of it is. And most of those programs are a net negative compared to reallocating their budgets to a UBI. Having separate bureaucracies to administer separate programs for food assistance, housing assistance, education assistance, etc. is foolish even before they create weird marginal rate cliffs and higher marginal rates on lower income people by having arbitrarily overlapping phase out rates.
It isn't about the source of the money. Converting those things to a UBI would cost less money to give people more money because you'd save the amount spent on administration, while improving economic efficiency by not imposing arbitrary restrictions on how it's spent. The primary reason we don't do that isn't upper middle class people demanding a status quo in their own interest -- it isn't in their interest.
It's a combination of ordinary incompetence and bad structural incentives because politicians like to claim credit for creating new programs instead of just indexing the amount of a cash payment everybody gets to GDP per capita and then sending them all home.
>The primary reason we don't do that isn't upper middle class people demanding a status quo in their own interest -- it isn't in their interest.
I never said it was. They think it is, though, and fight cash payments tooth and nail. People don't vote in their economic self-interest when it involves new and unusual policies that they perceive as an attack. There are a lot more of them voting than there are billionaires, and they contribute quite a bit to efforts to keep things the way they are. I think breaking the pact six figure earners have with people making much more is crucial to restructuring the economy to work for people who aren't elite wealth-holders.
>It isn't about the source of the money. Converting those things to a UBI would cost less money to give people more money
We're talking about two different things. You want benefit reform. I want benefit reform, and forced distribution of productivity gains to labor, and heavy structural impediments to outsize personal wealth. You say "unintended consequences" when you I think you mean "undesirable consequences", but the funny thing is that they're both intended and desirable. Let's go back to an exec's lifestyle being tied to his job because he can't extract a huge paycheck without being taxed heavily. Please, take your money and inflate a foreign economy instead of spending it to buy elections here (if you manage to get it past the IRS).
> The problem is convincing comfortable, ambitious middle-high earners to put a cap on their and their bosses' prospects in exchange for the stability (and subsequent ground preparation for innovation) of a higher floor.
The thing about a UBI is that it works regardless of what the amount is, up to any reasonable threshold. If it's small it doesn't do as much but it still does better than the same amount in some other benefits. You can only mess it up by making it excessively large, e.g. you can't do a $100k/year UBI because you'd need to collect ~$34 trillion in tax revenue from a ~$32 trillion GDP. Everything other than that is a trade off which is basically asking the question of how redistributive you want to be.
The amount of redistributive we are right now isn't zero, so converting that existing budget to be a UBI instead is "free" -- it's a net positive to essentially everyone -- no reduction in prospects or bonuses required.
But we can't even manage to do that.
And we could even get a "real" UBI without having oppressive tax rates -- $15,000 for every US citizen comes from a <16% universal tax rate, i.e. a flat tax of <16% of GDP. That's the number with no other government programs, but it's also something that replaces most of them.
> You say "unintended consequences" when you I think you mean "undesirable consequences", but the funny thing is that they're both intended and desirable.
I mean unintended as in you won't like them.
There are a lot of things that it's hard to tax because they're hard to value. How much is it worth to have a job that lets you play with the company's toys, or choose who they hire, or who gets their contracts? How much is a piece of "intellectual property" worth? How about a contract with an unspecified probability of having a large payout in the future? Things like that can all be used to transfer value at a reduced amount of tax, but they bring inefficiency and corruption. Misallocation of resources, nepotism and cronyism, bureaucratic empire building, reduced liquidity, etc. The higher the tax rate you use, the more incentive there is to do these things in order to avoid it.
If you subject people to very different tax rates then they can be arbitraged. Instead of Bob in the highest tax bracket making $X, a dozen family members in lower tax brackets get "hired" to be paid $X/12 so the family gets the same money without paying the higher rate, and now we're incentivizing nepotism and cronyism again.
More than 90% of new businesses fail. That means the remaining <10% need to have significantly better returns for the founders than what you get by working a corporate job or nobody would do it, and if nobody starts new companies then markets consolidate as existing companies fail or buy each other, and the more markets consolidate the more they screw consumers/workers and the more influence they have over the government.
Tax rates have a strong effect on where companies build things. If you invest a million dollars in something that will produce a 15% annual return and there is a 20% tax rate, that's a 12% return after tax. If you make the tax rate 80%, it's a 3% return after tax. Meanwhile if you build it in some other country you get a 10% return after tax, and they're going to do the thing that has the highest after-tax return, so you raise the tax rate and the factory is gone, along with the jobs.
> Let's go back to an exec's lifestyle being tied to his job because he can't extract a huge paycheck without being taxed heavily.
Wait, what? That's basically setting it up so that your boss owns you, and how to set up the economy so that it runs even more on cronyism and favors because there is no tax on the implicit value of a back room deal.
Ah, subtle misread. You think a cap is against their interests, but my point was that lower-class stability nets out better for them. Right now, the bottom is as sticky as the top, but it's much easier to fall and the middle class is unstable. This is backwards from what it should be: extreme difficulty in rising to the elite or falling into poverty. More of the upper middle class would benefit from not being driven into bankruptcy by medical costs than do now from the opportunity to become centimillionaires.
>But we can't even manage to do that
Swing for the fences.
>And we could even get a "real" UBI without having oppressive tax rates
The "oppressive" rates are a feature. Democratizing and socializing wealth is a good thing.
>I mean unintended as in you won't like them.
Yes, that's what I said. And then followed up with, "I actually will like them."
>If you subject people to very different tax rates then they can be arbitraged. Instead of Bob in the highest tax bracket making $X, a dozen family members in lower tax brackets get "hired" to be paid $X/12 so the family gets the same money without paying the higher rate, and now we're incentivizing nepotism and cronyism again.
The dozen family members don't move in lock step the way Bob does when he has all the money. One cousin sinks all his money into entertainment, another opens an esoteric shop (doesn't matter if it fails, for a time it provides employment to people who otherwise couldn't find jobs), one donates to a pet cause. Bezos loses half in the divorce and it unleashes a philanthropic beast in his ex, when otherwise it would have gone to another yacht or TRT cycle.
>That means the remaining <10% need to have significantly better returns for the founders than what you get by working a corporate job or nobody would do it
Do you know people? Especially people who start businesses? Most businesses fail because people start them for reasons other than raw profitability. Many businesses are happy to break even or even lose money for the sake of a mission.
>Wait, what? That's basically setting it up so that your boss owns you
Company already owns you, since healthcare is directly tied to employment and housing is effectively tied to it to. This makes it so that the company owns the execs, too. Instead of being wealthy independent of the company, able to rely on bailing out with a golden parachute when things get rough, their lifestyle would require actually performing. I see this as an absolute win.
Put alternatively, better rates for consumers. How should one portion the cost of the electrical system as a whole to different groups of people? If someone seldom draws electricity from the grid, and only when it is likely more expensive how much should they pay? What about the limit where everyone is a prosumer and has this usage pattern?
It works really well and it's just a single static binary file (ffmpeg is needed on your $PATH), easier to use than ffsubsync which needs gcc to compile random stuff, and that stopped working randomly
Inkjet printers and coffee pods machines are other home oriented devices that are normally sold at a loss where official consumables are crazy expensive
I've tried to get into Factorio multiple times because I really love 2D isometric games, but the learning curve is incredibly steep. In my opinion, franchises like the original Command & Conquer were much more accessible for non-hardcore gamers like myself. Factorio feels less like a game and more like managing a complex software architecture.
I can recommend turning off biters, or at least biter expansion. That way you can at least focus on building your factory, without getting distracted by attacks.
Using a main bus where your factory is built in comb like rows on one side (so you can make the bus wider on the other side) is simple and will work pretty well for the starter base (i.e until you fire your first rocket and "win" the game).
I often split my starter factory in 4 quadrants with sufficient space for belts between them:
1. Smelters
2. Main bus based factory
3. Oil processing
4. Personal fabrication and mall (especially once logistic bots become available)
Do not recommend main bus design to new players! The most fun I've in Factorio had was getting to a rocket blind and dealing with my spaghetti factory. Even mentioning any kind of pattern to new players should be avoided.
I avoided a main bus after noticing nearly all the copper went to producing circuits and low density structure, and similarly most iron for steel and green circuits - so just site those close together linked via short buses [1]. Then ship the remaining copper, iron and steel to the Science factory using single wagon trains. (That’s just for a simple one rocket per hour factory)
As a factory game vet, it's always fun to see how the big daddy factorio primes first time players in the other factory games, and you see main busses in Satisfatory (which is sub optimal because the limiting factor is belt transport capacity), and Dyson Sphere Program (viable in the early game before drone logistics, but only in the arctic poles, and irrelevant later on).
Obviously, this main bus pattern does _work_ in all the games, if sufficiently dedicated, as does having no pattern at all, if sufficiently bloody minded (johnson) about it.
The bigger problem with busses in Satisfactory is they're too fragile. One component backs up and it can wreck the bus for everybody else. Setting up the extra belts to deal with overflow at every spot ends up being more work than just running dedicated belts for each component.
Would even recommend peaceful mode, biters to me always felt like the least fun part of the game, especially while still learning how things worked. It's like you have a coworker come over and interrupt whatever you were doing, except instead of doing small talk they close half your tabs, clear your browser data so you are logged out of every site, and steal your coffee mug
I disable expa sion but also biters evolution. Without expansion and evolution biters are just the right amount of pressure for me for casual play without completely losing having to climb half of the game tech tree
For some reason I never had a problem with the biters on the default difficulty. I got the sense they were there as another ball to juggle rather than a primary antagonist. Simply building turrets around structures was enough to fend them off in the early game until I could proactively destroy their nests in the pollution zone. After I started doing that, they never bothered me again.
It's not about the challenge tbh i play rail worlds because I like trains and while it evens out long term the start is slower and I dont feel like having time based evolution is a fair or interesting. I do leave pollution based evolution tho. That feed into base design choices
I had the exact same experience as you until I finally tried it for a third time. After working through the tutorial I was completely hooked. I had quite a few hours of fun until I decided I was playing too much and had to delete it. I would agree the learning curve is fairly steep. It's not complicated, just dense.
My issue with it is the same that I have with things like Shenzhen IO. It’s fun to solve such problems but only with the right tools. Restrictions become very irritating when solving something like a programming problem, especially when it’s “refactoring” related
reply