Combining the WiFi with the router never made sense to me. Routers can last a long time and WiFi gets new versions with new capabilities every few years.
I would rather just connect a separate wireless AP to my switch, preferably also with PoE. And then I can upgrade and expand that as needed while leaving the perfectly fine router alone.
Is it weird that we don't have a way to update the system without rebooting by this day and age?
I think there are things in Linux like live kernel patching (kexec, ksplice), but why by 2026 is this sort of architecture of live system updates not a common or included feature yet?
People hate updates and having to reboot and have downtime right? Security updates to core systems are more important than ever now too. So why hasn't this problem been tackled I wonder?
Wouldn't it be great if our systems could update without us having to reboot and interrupt our workloads?
Maybe get your governments and citizens to innovate and create their own instead of relying so heavily on other countries. I thought that's the direction other countries were trying to go.
I save for retirement yes. I only spend about 30% of my income to live and other other 70% I save for retirement.
I don't feel like I'm being cheap or limiting myself. I have hobbies that I enjoy, computers, home theater, pickleball, scuba diving, hiking, biking. I travel a lot for fun, backpacking and trips around the world to see cool cities, hike mountains and experience different cultures.
I don't find my job particularly demanding or stressful, it's flexible, the people I work with are nice. I just spend what I feel I need to spend to do what I want to enjoy myself and the rest I put in investments.
I know I can't take it with me, but it just means I will be able to retire that much sooner.
I get a 3% raise every year as the default, aside from promotions and such, and the amount it gains me is about 3x higher than my cost of living increases have been these past years, so it really does not feel like I am making less. I am living my same life that I enjoy and saving a bit more and more each year.
This never made sense to me. Doesn't this assume you are spending ALL your income though?
If I make 100K and get a 3% increase, that's $3000 more.
But if I only spend 30K to live, and my living expenses go up 5%, that's only a $1500 increase to my living expenses while I earned $3000 more that year. So how is that a pay cut if I actually have even more money left over that basically just goes into my investment account then.
I don't understand why people take shortcuts in school. You pay a LOT of money to be there to learn. Taking shortcuts seems completely counterintuitive to me.