Another solution: run ethernet cables outdoors on the ground.
You can do ethernet cables outdoors from your router in your house to your router in your office. Either thin cables that go under doors, or outdoor rated ones, both can work fine.
This same approach can work inside a house as an alternative to mesh networking or running cables through walls. The cables don't have to be invisible (underground or in walls) when you have tough constraints, unless you want them to be.
There is equipment that will dig a small tunnel like thing under concrete, avoiding needing to destroy your driveway (assuming there is space on either side) . Won't be cheap, but it's possible.
> The direct line across would get run over by cars. Indirect routes would still have to cross pavement and look ugly.
Search for "cable protector ramps"
> And then there are still those six feet of stone that needs drilling through to get the cable outside and back in.
Thin cables designed to run under doors or windowsills are an option. Search for "flat ethernet cable"
It seems like you prefer your setup for good reasons, and these solutions above are both ugly, but I still wanted to note to others reading this that workarounds exist.
It's just that almost anything is better than wifi in concrete/stone houses. I can see point-to-point outside with an unobstructed view being reliable enough. But point-to-point through 3ft of concrete is [HN is a neglected Xennial hobby and doesn't support emojis]!
Certainly worth reconsidering wired when that P2P hardware goes EOL.
To what end? The runs aren't going to be long enough for fiber to provide a benefit, and the transceivers are more expensive for consumer use like this.
> Show HN is for something you've made that other people can play with.
> Off topic: blog posts, sign-up pages, newsletters, lists, and other reading material. Those can't be tried out, so can't be Show HNs. Make a regular submission instead.
My sense: human relationships come from repeated interaction over time. This is why college is easy for friendships and suburbs aren't.
The solution is very different for someone who is within walking distance of a neighborhood coffee shop vs someone who isn't.
It seems like there's 3 levels of solutions recommended here:
1) Individual: join recurring activities, volunteer, join communities, get a dog, work on yourself, sports/physical hobbies
2) Founder: Create third spaces, host events, or just create and initiate activities that bring people together
3) Policy: Urban design reform, third spaces. Make it easier for more third spaces to exist and more walkable neighborhoods.
It's like capex vs opex. A lot of the fixes recommended here are very high ongoing daily effort for individuals. But this is such an important thing for humans! So it would be better if the built environment was better, and human interaction was easier and lower effort to get for more people. More walkable high trust places, more third places.
Should there be lots more affinity based master planned communities? Probably yes. More in person theme parks and activity places? Probably yes. More games like Pokemon Go? Probably yes. Better walkability in existing cities? Probably yes. etc.
tl;dr at an individual level, these suggestions are good, but the fact that so much individual level effort is needed imo points to more of a need for macro solutions so it's lower energy for most people to have nice local walkable communities and friends (like people have in university, cities post-university, and in retirement homes)
Honestly how? What law could be written that would ban PE firms and lookalike businesses that would hold up to scrutiny.
No one with a brain likes what PE does, but really, what do they do that's illegal as opposed to people finally realizing that capitalism is essentially evil?
PE depends on favorable tax loopholes and a lot of acquisitions depend on them being able to do things like buying a company with a ton of loans which they then saddle the acquired company with or stripping assets before going bankrupt. All of that depends on arbitrary legal structures and protections which could be rebalanced to favor more productive business models.
Right. Either you directly regulate activity, or you adjust incentives. If you suggest one, detractors say you can't do that, you have to do the other thing, and then work as hard as possible to block your efforts to do the very thing they suggested you do. That's because they don't want things to change at all. But that's obviously not an option, so I tend to suggest trying both and seeing what sticks.
what gets me is trying to make the argument that market economies are not necessarily capitalist economies. it seems plain over time that capitalism works to destroy markets. As an American I'm pretty pro market, but that means at this point I'm an enemy of capitalism.
It doesn't help that the people who say that prove an understanding of capitalism is about as thin as a single layer of varnish and their collective ideas for workable alterations would fit on a single index card after it was already ripped up by hand.
Painfully true and somehow it's everywhere on this forum. To these people, capitalism and markets and money are all the same thing, and the only finite resources in the universe are those whose distribution is gatekept by the evil, evil capitalist overlords.
Everybody's experience is different. I've found experientially that anybody who can actually define and describe these things with any degree of seriousness is, at least, aware of the resource constraints that make up the real world and have opinions that at least run in approximate sync with reality, which definitionally excludes them espousing real Redditor crap. I'm willing to engage with anti-capitalists who have at least put in the work to understand capitalism, but it seems like there's not much overlap between "understands" and "disagrees" for that segment.
No, and in case you stopped reading partway into my comment, this type of useless gotcha counts under Redditor crap. I don't think it's controversial that understanding something is a pathway to criticizing it appropriately. The average anti-capitalist cannot begin to describe exactly what it is they hate, which is in my opinion one of the defining valuable features of capitalism - that many people can benefit from it without understanding it one lick, and can in fact ineffectually hate it while benefiting from it.
This is the website of a bunch of rich capitalists who got rich by doing capitalism. Of course you can't call the owners of the website evil on that website.
One implication of this is that we need regulatory improvements (ie improvement via negativa, less) for healthcare, childcare, education, and building new housing. It’s non-ideal when government policies restrict supply and restrict competition, and entrench existing players.
And as an aside, if you can, just get customers first instead of raising. Raising is best done either when it's impossible to not raise, or when you already have multiple investors offering you money.
Then once you have nice revenue and customer references, cold email investors who've invested in similar companies to yours. Or, maybe you'll see that you don't need to raise because you're getting enough money from customers.
The prescription here might be for people to be able to easily afford to live walkable to some of their family and friends.
Lots of things come from this: shared resources (less income need, less work stress), shared emotional support, shared childcare (less income need), etc.
Instead of single family homes (one family is not the atomic unit of the human species!) it should've been single community developments with 15 homes and a big shared backyard but still private for all the houses. And the landlord + all the tenants can select the residents based on their personal preferences and anyone can veto.
I think many challenges stem from the lack of this.
I don't know what the fix is though, because housing regulations seem difficult to change.
Indeed. I think better "built environments that are conducive to community" are important, and can help things like this. ie things to reverse the "bowling alone" type trends.
You can do ethernet cables outdoors from your router in your house to your router in your office. Either thin cables that go under doors, or outdoor rated ones, both can work fine.
This same approach can work inside a house as an alternative to mesh networking or running cables through walls. The cables don't have to be invisible (underground or in walls) when you have tough constraints, unless you want them to be.
reply