A public facing web server, I doubt it. But for a private one it can make a lot of sense - you are probably only using N services at a time, where N is the number of users.
As for what can be so resource intensive that it's worth to wait for startup time instead of running everything at the same time - a bunch of specialized LLMs is the obvious example. Or maybe you're a hobbyist cramming a hundred services into a tiny computer.
> But I don't think you can limit people's wealth and not call it communism.
Is that your actual objection? It sounds more like a smear by association.
Famously, the USA under Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90% on income over $200K - "merely" a few million dollars in modern-day money.
Was the Eisenhower administration Communist? If it wasn't, would it have become Communist if they had gone a bit further and added a marginal rate of 99% for income over oh, let's say $20M (a few hundred million dollars nowadays)?
I think if you traveled back in time and proposed such a bill, the reaction from folks like Senator McCarthy would not have been "that's Communism" but more likely "that's a ridiculous and useless bill, how could anyone ever accumulate that much personal wealth? It would be absurd".
Andrew Carnegie was worth something like 300 billion USD (today, inflation adjusted). So that level of wealth was not unknown by the time of the Eisenhower administration.
> Club 33 is the name of a number of private dining clubs located within Disney Parks. The first opened inside Disneyland in 1967, and was modeled after sponsor lounges at the 1964 New York World's Fair. At the time it opened, Club 33 was the only location within Disneyland that offered alcoholic beverages.
> The initial cost of membership at Disneyland and Walt Disney World was previously reported to be $35,000, followed by an annual due of $15,000–16,000.[8] In 2012, the reported cost of membership increased to $50,000 initiation fee and $15,000 annually for individuals, more for corporations.[9][10]
Interesting, I would never have guessed that Disneyland had a luxury club hidden inside.
I wonder what the members are like, and how they may have evolved over the years. "Ordinary" (if extremely wealthy) visitors, who are accustomed to fine dining and don't want to lower their standards even during a family trip? Or is it an entirely separate crowd, that travels to Disneyland specifically to have dinner and smoke Cubans there?
I know many people in club 33, mostly daughters and wives of rich businessmen who are Disney fanatics and enjoy the bragging rights. I don't think they really care for the fine dining.
If I recall, there's also a waitlist for those who want to even be eligible to pay the fee to join Club 33.
I would imagine it to be similar sitting in 1st Class on an airplane. Your accommodations within that area are nicer relative to the rest of the park, but probably below the standard the person who can afford it would be accustomed to.
More to the point, in the (very, very brief) glimpses of insight I've had to that caliber of people, it's less so about, "I want fancy things because I'm rich" and more so something closer to, "I want to be around people who aren't going to be trying to get me to fund their startup. Or scam me. Or rob me. Or call me a monster for being wealthy."
That is to say, it's more so about the kind of people you are around, and the interactions that keeps you away from, rather than how nice the accommodations are. Instead, the price you pay for that privacy leads to nicer accommodations by association. (The velvet rope and well-dressed bouncer don't matter; the dark lit area away from the roar of the crowd is the point.)
Basically, it gives a short break to be away from and avoid potentially dangerous situations. It gives you the chance to be left alone for a while and let your guard down for a bit, so you can enjoy your drink in peace.
To be clear: I'm nowhere near that well off, and don't know anyone that well off. I have just heard that kind of sentiment floated around on rare occasions in a friend-of-a-friend-who-knew-a-guy type thing.
I don't know if things have changed in the past couple decades, but at least some of the members are just regular people there using their company's membership. I went there twice as a child because my dad did well enough at work that year or something along those lines. I was too young to fully appreciate the experience, but they had some tasty mac and cheese and a memorable elevator.
Club 33 is big in Disney lore. It's where Walt raised money for the Florida Project. Even though it's tucked away, those who know stand outside the door just hoping to peek in when someone comes and goes.
From the people I know with membership, it is just a flex. I don't know they actually go there very often. It's so hard to get in that you don't want to drop your membership once you're in. The ones I know are just regular rich LA residents. Hollywood-adjacent.
It's largely corporate to my understanding. So similar to box seats at a baseball game, if you know somebody there's a decent chance you might get to go one day
The games themselves run perfectly fine in Wine (Proton), with or without mods. Unfortunately, the fan-made tools to support mods are less reliable.
The most notable example is probably Wabbajack, a tool that manages modpacks for many games but is best known for TES games, where modlists consist of hundreds of mods and are a pain to manually install. Ironically it is a WPF app written in modern C#, so in principle _could_ run under Wine just fine, and could even be ported to a native GUI app via Avalonia UI or similar.
Unfortunately, it is apparently quite fragile in its path management and relies on both Edge WebView to download mods and Windows Steam to install them, so the maintainers think it's not viable to make it run under Wine [0], although of course someone has bashed together a script to work around it [1]. That last one is quite recent so I just discovered it while writing this post!
Do you have the sandboxed Play Services installed? It works fine for me on Graphene (just checked).
That said, the recommendation I always give, and personally follow: keep a spare phone in a drawer somewhere, with official Android installed, a Google account, and use it exclusively for business purposes - banking, government services, and the email account you use for those (separate from the one you use for everything else). Nothing else, no messaging, socials, browsing, or games.
Then you're free to keep your personal phone FOSS and as private as you like, without fear of getting locked out of important stuff due to a crappy Google® SafetyNet® upgrade.
> That said, the recommendation I always give, and personally follow: keep a spare phone in a drawer somewhere, with official Android installed, a Google account, and use it exclusively for business purposes - banking, government services, and the email account you use for those (separate from the one you use for everything else). Nothing else, no messaging, socials, browsing, or games.
Anything which doesn't support an alternative method (not involving a proprietary blessed google phone) of management should be illegal if it's government related and should be boycotted if it's not.
I certainly agree with the sentiment (I would trust-bust tech giants, and severely restrict advertising as a whole for being a negative-sum game).
Nevertheless, for living in this world while preserving your privacy, my advice stands. Separate the devices that you control, which you will use for personal and private purposes, from the devices that global corporations and institutions control, which you will use to access the services those institutions provide - services which, by definition, you would not control anyway.
It is far, far simpler than having to get proprietary, frequently-updated software to play nice inside a secure sandbox. If they do, great, but separate devices ensures it isn't a capital-P Problem for you if they stop.
(FWIW, I lived in three different European countries over the past decade and so far the governments all offered TOTP-based web alternatives to their apps. When it comes to private banking, only one (Lunar) was available only via app, but it was also the only one that ran without Play Services.)
> It is far, far simpler than having to get proprietary, frequently-updated software to play nice inside a secure sandbox. If they do, great, but separate devices ensures it isn't a capital-P Problem for you if they stop.
What I am saying (and what I do) is that it's far simpler still to just not rely on anything where this might be the case.
If my bank turned around tomorrow and said I can't use their website to manage my account, I would not attempt to get their app working on my phone, I would switch bank.
My main point was that the batteries are replaced anyway, if the product still has life in it (os updates, decent perf) because people have shops replace batteries or they trade them in when upgrading and they are refurbished and resold. But all of this hinges on the product being a high cost/long support product to begin with, like iPhone. Cheaper androids don’t fit this description.
Thinking outside the uBlock box most of the Mullvad advertorial placement I see is from Best VPNs for the coming Dystopia articles and host forum site banners (not on typical ad black lists), fellow user guides, etc.
So, not Mullvad ads being blocked but actual Mullvad themed content positioned as of direct interest to the target demographic.
Encrypted DNS is certainly an improvement, but it's only as anonymous as the IP address you are connecting to.
I am not aware of any firewalls that enforce the rule 'only attempt to connect to massively-shared cloud IPs that can't be easily subject to a reverse DNS lookup'.
