maxwellfire

You only setup the wolf container and give it access to the docker socket to spawn more containers. Then when a user connects via moonlight, they choose an app via the UI, and it will spin up a container for that app with a virtual desktop just for them. Critically that virtual desktop will match whatever fps/resolution the client requests.

It does require some knowledge about docker to get setup, like how mounts work (so you can have files shared into the containers, etc). But it's pretty simple. You can basically just copy the docker compose file (or I use the podman quadlet file) and modify the paths where you want to save things and you're good to go. If you want to share the game installations with your main computer's steam, that's a bit more work, but also not too much.

There's very good support on the project discord as well if you have questions/issues

This is exactly what Wolf is meant for. It works great!

This is very cool! Nice job!

Would you like a critique?

Yeah I think they're counting NOAA as non-free since you couldn't run their servers yourself. Which like, NOAA is doing the data collection and analysis themselves. I'm not sure that's a fair classification. Maybe I'm missing something

Isn't it just NOAA?

Wow that's extremely annoying.

On openwrt, you just tell the interface to grab a /64 from any other interface that tags its delegation as shareable. And on the source interface you can specify with what priority those /64s are given out.

Isn't the recommended strategy to delegate a larger prefix to the gateway and then make smaller subnetworks from that for each interface? Then you don't have to deal with separate prefixes.

Almost all Wikipedia pages allow not only live edits but anonymous ones as well. It worked remarkably well until the hallucination machines arrived.

What you learn is that the cost of food now is quite a bit cheaper than it was in 1963.

The error is in assuming this matters to the calculation. The issue is with using CPI, not the supposed basis on food.

If this is difficult to see, maybe try doing the calculation of the metric under a few scenarios. Like imagine food had become 80% of consumer costs. Would the poverty line as calculated now be too high? Let us know what you find out.

I believe that some parts of housing are included, like rental costs, which most people around the poverty line are paying instead of a mortgage. Since renting is consumptive instead of asset generating.

But yeah, this doesn't capture the additional disparity between rental and purchase prices, and that's huge in trying to own your home.

Inflation is a single percentage based on total cost of living: I agree. But I don't agree at all that your second point follows from your first? Imagine the original calculation was based on the cost people spent on bell bottom pants each year. And that happened to be accurate at the time (and therefore ended up with an original number similar to the food calculation). If we adjusted that number for inflation, would you say that the new number was still based on the cost of bell bottoms (even though the number would be equal to the one "based on food"). And if so, how can you say that the same number was "based on food" and "based on bell bottoms" at the same time?

To be fair, I did only read about the first 1/3 of the article before I got too annoyed at it and checked the HN comments to see if anyone had the same frustrations I did. I've now gone back and read the whole article, and my skepticism for their numbers/calculations remains throughout. I agree with their point generally, that there's a benefits cliff that undermines the effectiveness of the social safety net, but the way that they get there feels like them pulling numbers out of nowhere.

Also, you're still making the same mistake that the author did by saying that it assumes that other variables remain static for 60 years. That's not how this calculation is done. The previous value is multiplied by the change in CPI, which is a measure of the inflation. That inflation measure includes increases in housing, food, etc. Which is the way in which those other variables are coupled back into the metric.

Your horse example actually demonstrates this, but in the opposite way to what you're saying.

Imagine that 3x horse expenses was a really good metric for how much you needed to survive in 1910. Let's say that worked out to 1k a year (making numbers up). At this point we don't have to care how this number was derived, since it's a really good metric for the poverty line in 1910. Now we take this 1k number and multiple it by the inflation since 1910. Not the inflation in horse maintenance costs (which would be what you're describing), but the general inflation overall. We arrive at some number. Horse maintenance is now essentially 0% of the average cost of living, but that won't make this metric incorrect. Imagine that the metric was instead based on 10x the cost of clothes. And that also worked out to about 1k. It's not like when we multiply this 1k by the CPI change, we're going to end up with a different number than the 1k*CPI we got from horse maintenance costs. How the original number was derived is not relevant to its current accuracy. This is the fallacy that both you and the article are making.

The more correct question to be asking is why does CPI not account for the cost of living changes we see. Not dunking on a formula because you misunderstand it.