Twitch is testing peer-to-peer streaming in Korea

[Elijah Kamski]

On 8/1/2022 at 3:30 AM, pzspah said:

Several countries are moving towards banning made up caps for internet use because they are just that, made up and serve no other purpose than greed.

Waiting for Australia...

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

Waiting for Australia...

??  If you have a cap then change providers. Plenty of them don't.

[Elijah Kamski]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

??  If you have a cap then change providers. Plenty of them don't.

Nah, just that each provider caps upload to 50 Mbps unless you register as a business with a ABN.

I don't want to do quarterly tax reports XD

[HomeBoi]

On 8/1/2022 at 1:26 PM, Donut417 said:

The United States of America. Comcast, Mediacom, Cox, WOW are some of the biggest ISP's with Data caps. 

Ah yes the nr 1 developing country on earth, it's at this point honestly amazing people still choose to stay in the US instead of moving to almost any other country on earth to enjoy some basic human rights and such. 

[Donut417]

4 minutes ago, HomeBoi said:

Ah yes the nr 1 developing country on earth, it's at this point honestly amazing people still choose to stay in the US instead of moving to almost any other country on earth to enjoy some basic human rights and such. 

Have you seen the cost to move? Also its not simple as moving. You can't just move to a country and get a job. There are processes that you have to go thru and that can be a headache. Not to mention the process to become a citizen of your new country and such. All of that can cost a bit of coin and when a good portion of the US lives pay check to pay check, moving out isnt an option. 

[Albal_156]

Twitch should honestly start rolling out AV1 encode already if this is gonna to be a thing going forward.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, HomeBoi said:

Ah yes the nr 1 developing country on earth, it's at this point honestly amazing people still choose to stay in the US instead of moving to almost any other country on earth to enjoy some basic human rights and such. 

Unless you have like 20 million dollars to literately set on fire in moving expenses, most Americans do not have savings at all. Believe me, every time the US elects a new president there is a wave of visits to the Canadian Immigration websites, but never an influx of people actually moving.

 

Mobility to/from the US is hamstrung by the fact that Americans have no savings. The same is also true of Canada, Australia and European countries outside the the EEA. If it was a zero-cost to move to any country, most people would likely move to whichever country has the highest standard of living. That would be countries like Canada, Denmark and Sweden. No country is perfect, and usually "high standard of living" is limited to only three or so cities in any particular country, which will be the capital, the most populous city, and whichever city is the main financial hub/port city, if it's not the most populous city. Most people who don't live within 100km of those cities have a substandard quality of life due to governments not funding reasonable medical, educational and/or transportation services.

 

For example. In Canada, the province of Quebec often allows "financial immigrants (business owners)", but then Quebec then imposes a very bureaucratic-to-the-point-of-exhaustion process, that pushes them to Toronto or Vancouver. 

 https://globalnews.ca/news/3886743/quebec-immigrant-investor-program-vancouver/

 

But I digress, when we are talking about internet services, that high standard of living that some countries enjoy also applies to internet availability. Like 4G and 5G internet? forget about it in Canada, drive 30 minutes outside the city, no internet. Need a service that is provided by the internet, like online banking? Well, better hope your city has the five banks all located in the downtown core 30 minutes away, because, they aren't going to have branches anywhere near the rural homes. Repeat for medical and educational services.

 

Like people always say "then move", but then never actually sit there and calculate the cost of moving. Internet services outside of cities with 100,000+ populations is often served by only a single provider that imposes caps because they don't want to service customers that they have to serve at a loss. The cost of living outside the city with no public transit is atrociously expensive, because nobody looks at the costs of owning homes and cars.

 

 

[Donut417]

15 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The cost of living outside the city with no public transit is atrociously expensive, because nobody looks at the costs of owning homes and cars.

Actually the cost of living outside of a city is cheaper. Because the property taxes are cheaper because your generally only having to pay the taxes to the county vs a municipality. Because I can tell you that the rent and property taxes down in Detroit are fucking insane for what they provide. 

 

The pros of living in a rural area are your costs are down. Rent/the cost of a house is lower, the property taxes are lower. The cons are you dont have any basic services beside electricity. 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Actually the cost of living outside of a city is cheaper. Because the property taxes are cheaper because your generally only having to pay the taxes to the county vs a municipality. Because I can tell you that the rent and property taxes down in Detroit are fucking insane for what they provide. 

 

The pros of living in a rural area are your costs are down. Rent/the cost of a house is lower, the property taxes are lower. The cons are you dont have any basic services beside electricity. 

If it's so cheap, why isn't everyone living in the countryside? Because it IS NOT cheaper. You have to drive, everywhere. You have to spend stupid amounts of time traveling to do anything but sit in your home. You have expensive maintenance on your home that requires getting people 100miles away to come to your property. It costs multi-thousands of dollars to have services installed.

 

The only reason people believe it's cheaper, is because they haven't lived there for 30 years. You buy a new build, maybe it will be cheaper for about 10 years, but then you're paying 2-100x as much as a city-dweller does for the same service, if you can even get it.

 

Rural internet is so terrible because nobody wants to foot the bill to deliver it. You want to live 30 miles outside the city? Well, be prepared to be your own ISP https://www.wired.com/story/this-man-built-his-own-isp-26-million-dollar-funds/

 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

why isn't everyone living in the countryside?

If you actually read what I wrote you would know. I said, housing costs, taxes are all cheaper. However you DONT have access to many services outside of power. Ever wonder why people are moving out of the cities? Its because the costs are too damned high. It the cities and suburbs you have to pay both county and municipal property tax. In rural areas you only pay county. 

 

Furthermore they want like $1200 a month for a studio apartment in Downtown Detroit, how's that cheap? Not to mention you might have to pay for parking. Oh and if you work in Detroit you have to pay income tax to the city. 

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

If you actually read what I wrote you would know. I said, housing costs, taxes are all cheaper. However you DONT have access to many services outside of power. Ever wonder why people are moving out of the cities? Its because the costs are too damned high. It the cities and suburbs you have to pay both county and municipal property tax. In rural areas you only pay county. 

 

Furthermore they want like $1200 a month for a studio apartment in Downtown Detroit, how's that cheap? Not to mention you might have to pay for parking. Oh and if you work in Detroit you have to pay income tax to the city. 

Taxes are not the be-all-end-all. It is overall, cheaper to live in the city when you need and use services. If you would rather not have the services at all (you are very much going to die at home, alone, if you live far enough away that there is no 911 service) that's a risk you take. The taxes are cheaper because those services DO NOT EXIST.

 

The vast majority of people are unwilling to live somewhere that they can't get to a walmart in 10 minutes. Simple fact. Sure, you could move to a different city that has the same services and is just better run, but they are also more expensive. Sometimes "poorly operated services" is worse than no services.

 

I grew up in a rural area we had:

- No library access (the city was on the other side of the river, Access was only gained in the 90's)

- No fire department (A VFD was later built in the 90's)

- No school (it was shut down by the province to save costs in the 80's, and pretty much every rural school was abandoned)

- No hospital in the city (it was shut down by the province to save costs in the 90's)

- No mail delivery, you had to rent a PO box in the city

- No street address (until after the VFD was built,) so you couldn't even order a pizza

- No parcel delivery by FEDEX, UPS or anyone. Drive into the city if you want your parcels.

- No grocery store (drive 10 minutes into the city)

- No garbage pickup at all

- No recycling at all

- No Sewers

- No Cable (until the 90's)

- No DSL (until the 2000's)

- No High speed internet (until the 2000's)

- No Fiber (still as of 2022, despite the website saying the city has it.)

- No natural gas service (until the late 90's)

- No food couriers (they do not operate in any small cities)

- No taxi's (the city might have a single taxi for the entire population)

- No transit buses (no, the single downtown-to-college bus does not count, I lived in that city for years and never saw a single transit bus)

- No entertainment (The city had a single one-screen movie theatre until the 2000's)

- The road only got paved once in 40 years.

 

People take for granted how many services they actually get and use. If you want to have to drive to do absolutely everything, that is what you're facing, and you better own two vehicles because, at some point, one of those vehicles are going to break down and you don't want to be stuck at home because there's no taxi's.

 

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, Kisai said:

 The same is also true of Canada, Australia and European countries outside the the EEA.

 

 

You might want to delete Australia from your list.

 

Australia is actually very wealthy at a personal level.   The gini coefficient is 0.6 for net worth and 0.4 for gross household income.  So with 75% of people having a debt and only 30% of that 75% have a debt more than 3 times their household income and when you take into account the average Australian has a personal net worth of $1.05M this means that only about 15% of the population will continue to live paycheck to paycheck being unable to afford to go abroad.  The caveat is that with the current housing boom and rent/interest rate increases it will be temporarily harder for minimum wage earners.  But on the whole that is a temporary issue.

 

All you need to leave Australia is enough to buy a plane ticket, accommodation, food and the willingness to look for work in whatever country you go to.  Of all the people I know, a not insignificant portion,  have lived and worked in another country and most take 4 weeks of holidays every year many choosing to go abroad.  In fact it was so prevalent that when covid hit the spending that was normal to international travel got turned into home renovations sparking the biggest uptick in trade demand we have seen in a long time. 

 

 

 

EDIT: for those who want a basic picture of what this looks like, the average weekly household income in Australia is $1124 while the median (actual income majority of Australian's receive) is $956.  That means the richest people in Australia don't have all the cash and the poorest can still afford a flat screen tv, internet to run a car and not live in a shoe box.

[Kisai]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You might want to delete Australia from your list.

 

Australia is actually very wealthy at a personal level.   The gini coefficient is 0.6 for net worth and 0.4 for gross household income. 

Canada and Australia are pretty much even on the Gini index. Yet Denmark kicks both countries butts.

 

It doesn't negate the point that most people do not have "move to a cheaper country" on their bucket list. It's all relative. The "US" may be cheaper to live in, but only in some very narrow contexts. Likewise for Canada, UK, Australia and Denmark. There's a lot of empty land in Canada just like there is in Australia, but most of that land is either set aside for agriculture, timber or resource extraction. Most people are living in the major cities, because that's where all the services are. Moving to/from Sydney Australia, is not going to be much different to/from Vancouver, Canada or New York/LA in the US. You only see a different cost of living if you choose to to pick a smaller city, but not one that lacks services. In Canada that pretty much eliminates all but Vancouver, because every city east of Vancouver gets 3' of snow October to March. So unless you live in the major cities, the small ones grind to a halt, and if you're rural? Well you're just SOL, better hope you have three months worth of food and a backup generator.

 

Australia, I get the impression is inverted to Canada, where most people live in the major cities because it's too hot year round to live away from the ocean.  People are not evenly distributed over either country.

 

Korea, Japan, and Taiwan however are super-dense countries that most of their populations live in or near the capital or major city for the same reasons I mentioned above and in previous posts in the thread. It's much more expensive to live there, but all three countries you can reasonably live in without a car, even in more rural locations, because every place is serviced by trains. US? Canada? You're lucky if there is even one train a week, if you even have one. It's utterly impossible to live rural in Canada unless you're between the age of 20 and 50, and have no need for school or medical needs. Japan and Korea? Not the case, but also different, because their communities generally push families to live together, where as in the US and Canada, you're not considered an adult if you're still living with your parents. Very different priorities. 

 

But I digress again, if you want better internet "just move" is the worst answer. Moving to another country is generally not in the cards for most people, and those that have the financial resources to move, aren't going to move half way accross the planet just to avoid paying for data caps. There is no way the math for that checks out. 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Canada and Australia are pretty much even on the Gini index. Yet Denmark kicks both countries butts.

 

It doesn't negate the point that most people do not have "move to a cheaper country" on their bucket list. It's all relative. The "US" may be cheaper to live in, but only in some very narrow contexts. Likewise for Canada, UK, Australia and Denmark. There's a lot of empty land in Canada just like there is in Australia, but most of that land is either set aside for agriculture, timber or resource extraction. Most people are living in the major cities, because that's where all the services are. Moving to/from Sydney Australia, is not going to be much different to/from Vancouver, Canada or New York/LA in the US. You only see a different cost of living if you choose to to pick a smaller city, but not one that lacks services. In Canada that pretty much eliminates all but Vancouver, because every city east of Vancouver gets 3' of snow October to March. So unless you live in the major cities, the small ones grind to a halt, and if you're rural? Well you're just SOL, better hope you have three months worth of food and a backup generator.

 

Australia, I get the impression is inverted to Canada, where most people live in the major cities because it's too hot year round to live away from the ocean.  People are not evenly distributed over either country.

 

Korea, Japan, and Taiwan however are super-dense countries that most of their populations live in or near the capital or major city for the same reasons I mentioned above and in previous posts in the thread. It's much more expensive to live there, but all three countries you can reasonably live in without a car, even in more rural locations, because every place is serviced by trains. US? Canada? You're lucky if there is even one train a week, if you even have one. It's utterly impossible to live rural in Canada unless you're between the age of 20 and 50, and have no need for school or medical needs. Japan and Korea? Not the case, but also different, because their communities generally push families to live together, where as in the US and Canada, you're not considered an adult if you're still living with your parents. Very different priorities. 

 

But I digress again, if you want better internet "just move" is the worst answer. Moving to another country is generally not in the cards for most people, and those that have the financial resources to move, aren't going to move half way accross the planet just to avoid paying for data caps. There is no way the math for that checks out. 

 

I'm just saying that contrary to your post, majority of Australians do actually have the resources to move to another country (cheaper or not).  I don't know how they calculate personal wealth in Canada,  however the way it is calculated here literally means that that is what you would have in the bank if you sold all your assets and leveled your debts (what you would do if you wanted to move internationally).  I don't know about you, but I suspect you could live for quite some time in many other countries on $1M before needing a job.  

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I'm just saying that contrary to your post, majority of Australians do actually have the resources to move to another country (cheaper or not).  I don't know how they calculate personal wealth in Canada,  however the way it is calculated here literally means that that is what you would have in the bank if you sold all your assets and leveled your debts (what you would do if you wanted to move internationally).  I don't know about you, but I suspect you could live for quite some time in many other countries on $1M before needing a job.  

That's assuming you start from a point of having assets. In the US and Canada, unless you have a job offer, if you buy property in the country, that doesn't entitle you to automatic citizenship, so you're going to end up travelling between two or three countries 3-6 months at a time just to put up with the immigration charade.

 

Of the list of countries you can move to without any issue. Svalbard (possession of Norway, also extremely expensive), and Malta (just invest 350K) are pretty much it. All other countries pretty much require you do a pile of bureaucratic song and dance regarding legally working and legally living there. You can't just buy a one-way ticket, it's not the EEA, where you can move between European countries without consequence.

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's assuming you start from a point of having assets. In the US and Canada, unless you have a job offer, if you buy property in the country, that doesn't entitle you to automatic citizenship, so you're going to end up travelling between two or three countries 3-6 months at a time just to put up with the immigration charade.

 

Of the list of countries you can move to without any issue. Svalbard (possession of Norway, also extremely expensive), and Malta (just invest 350K) are pretty much it. All other countries pretty much require you do a pile of bureaucratic song and dance regarding legally working and legally living there. You can't just buy a one-way ticket, it's not the EEA, where you can move between European countries without consequence.

 

 

That's not assuming anything, it's literally what the statistics are, most Australians (easily 70%+) can right this minute afford to move countries.   Which country they go to and how hard it is to gain citizenship is a different discussion and does not change the fact Australians are a lot wealthier than people realize.  In fact we are a lot wealthier than many of our own even realize.  

 

 

But for the record, yes I feel sorry for those starting out right now as the latest inflation rates have not been kind to them and make it look like a hard road is ahead. However by the time an Aussie is in their 40's the majority of them will have amassed at least half the average personal wealth (or be damned close to it with some inheritance) regardless where they start.  And this is reflected in the ABS data with 70% of the population having a net worth of more than $300K and the median being $600K (specifically half of all aussies are at this or above it).  

 

 

For those of my Aussie friends who are experiencing hard times or have a different outlook please know I am not confusing this with life being easy,  it all takes hard work, two incomes and many unwanted compromises at times,  however the payoff is in the fact that by the time you are 30 you will be in a way more fortunate position than someone your age in either the UK or the US.