notabot

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

A valid point, trackers often give you a certain amount of upload credit for free, and there are often other ways to earn those credits too, so all users' ratios would be above 1.0, but that should have read "A closed group of users can all have a seed ratio of 1.0" if we're looking at just the data transfer itself.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Simple, elegant, and can be adjusted to match the decor, I like it.

An alternative might be to put the bag under the bed with a brick or similar resting on it to provide presure.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

A closed group of users can all have a seed ratio above 1.0, but it's a bit of a contrived set up. For simplicity, in the following examples we assume that each file is the same size, but this also works for other combinations.

Consider the smallest group, two users. If user A seeds a file and user B downloads it, whilst B seeds a different file, which A downloads, both users will have a ratio of 1.0 as they've up and down loaded the same amount.

For three users, A seeds a file, B and C then download a different half each, which they then share with each other. A has a total (upload, download) of (1,0), whilst B and C have (0.5,1). If you repeat this with B seeding and A and C downloading, then C seeding to A and B, you get each peer uploading 2 files worth of data, and downloading 2 files worth, for a ratio of 1.0 each.

You can keep adding peers and keep the ratios balanced, so it is possible for all the users on a private tracker to have a 1.0 ratio, but it's very unlikely to work out like that in real life, which is why you have other ways to boost your ratio.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

The longer I stare at this, the wronger it gets. It's like a magic eye picture made of nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, and it's horrifying for a whole range of reasons!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, I don't have anything of that sort. Feel free to ask here if you'd like, but I'm just using the information I can find on the web.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Oh, I know. The trouble is my brain keeps trying to flip to match the peas, then back for the rest of the image. It's just subtly wrong enough that it isn't absurd until you focus on it.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago (9 children)

That image is genuinely making my brain feel like it's twisting around in my skull to make it make sense, and it's not working.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'm only going to do this very roughly, only for the transport and using US prices (as they're easier to find), because the total cost of mining, transporting and dumping that much material is astronomical compared to the $70m budget. Even the transport cost alone are an order of magnitude higher.

Soil has a density of between 1,200 and 1,700 kilograms or 2,645 and 3,747 pounds per cubic metre.

I couldn't easily find bulk rates for trunking soil, but bulk trucking rates for grain seem to be in the right area from what I can see. A truckload of up to 80,000lb costs somewhat over $6 per mile.

Given the weight limit per truck, and taking a middling estimate of soil density of 3000lb/m^3 (rock would be heavier and so increase the cost), we can transport around 80000/3000=26m^3 per truck, at a cost of at least 615=$90, or $3.46 per m^3. Our budget for the whole operation was 75,000,000/(3,500,000100)=$0.20 per m^3.

From those figures we can see that simply trucking the spoil fron the operation would be more than 15 times the cost of paying the landowners. That ignores all of the other costs. Local rates may be sonewhat cheaper, but probably not enough to make a serious difference, and you'd need to ship over 10 million truckloads of dirt, which would put massive strain on local infrastructure too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

If I read your measurements correctly, you're talking about digging up over 350 million cubic metres of soil and rock, transporting them 15km and dumping them safely. Comparing that to the cost of paying the land owners gives you a budget of approximately $0.20 per cubic metre. Ignoring the digging costs, you'd have to check what your local rates for trucking bulk soil would be over that distance, but I suspect they're more than that on their own.

Then you have the rather signicicant issue of what to do with the literal mountain of soil and rock you need to dispose of. Just dumping it is going to cause pretty serious changes to the local environment, not least of which would be a new mountain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The sad part is that as I get older, the hardest part has become threading the needle...

If you dont have one, a needle threader is a huge boon.

view more: ‹ prev next ›