I think this post needs more cowbell.

The sort of tyranny you see in class based societies is not seen in Hunter gatherer society.

We can see this sort of tyranny evolved not just in humans, but in a wide variety of species. What makes humanity special in this regard? Why do you think our evolutionary ancestors were immune to these sorts of behaviors?

have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods

The sharing of food and material goods does not imply a lack of tyrannical behavior. A focus on the “carrots” does not justify ignoring the “sticks”.

That sort of tyranny won’t last long

That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.

If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.

Gorillas, elephant seals, wolves… If you look hard enough, you can find similar social structure even in invertebrates. If the tyrant is ever overthrown, he is always replaced by those overthrowing him, and the tyranny continues. This structure was successful because a tribe’s tyrant was a bigger threat to neighboring tribes than his own.

Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.

What really happened was that the departing group posed a competitive threat to those who remained, so they group collectively turned on the rebels. If a rebellion was ever actually successful, it quickly established the same structure with new players.

Before agriculture there was no surplus,

Tyranny thrives with surplus, scarcity, or anything in between.

So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.

The lesson that arises from this is submission. Submit to the tyrant of your tribe, or the tyrants of other tribes will be coming for you. If any in your tribe would turn against your tyrant, you owe a duty to your tyrant to eliminate them, and come to your tyrant’s aid. Your tribe will die out, unless you keep consensus and coherence in support of your own tyrant. You become a supporting member of the tyranny long before you ever pick up a shovel or hoe. The pinnacle of anarchy is submission to the nearest tyrant.

You don’t need a static IP, you just have to keep track of what your current dynamic IP is.

You still need a public IP address. More and more often, IPv4 services are provided behind CGNAT, which won’t be able to work as you describe.

If you don’t have a public IPv4 for your LAN you can use IPv6. Or, you can reverse proxy your services through a gateway with a public IPv4.

I use a a reverse proxy (Pangolin) running on a VPS. A Newt tunnel connects my LAN to to Pangolin, exposing my local services via subdomains.

/edit; vpns are good and all, but they require you to setup software on the remote device to connect to it, and that typically routes most if not all your traffic back to the vpn server then out to the internet. That can create speed/bandwidth issues.

Tailscale, ZeroTier, and other similar services generally establish direct tunnels between devices, without a separate VPN server. They use a central service merely as a sort of common meeting point (STUN/TURN) for the devices to figure out how to establish direct tunnel(s).

These were not benign, cooperative social structures. They were tiny dictatorships. The leader controlled the “discretion of the tribe” by eliminating dissent. The controlling principle of their social structure was “might makes right”.

Other words for the broad concept you are describing are “harem” and “cult”.

Not under this rationale, no.

The “+s/es” construction typically indicates plurality. “It” is fundamentally singular, so there is no justification for “its”.

“It’s” eliminates more exceptions to various rules for word construction; it achieves greater simplification.

Found the English teacher.

The apostrophe-s construction “it’s” suffices for both the contractive form “it is” as well as the possessive form of “it”. “Its” exists solely to satisfy the craven pedantry of elementary school English teachers. Nothing of value is lost by abandoning this archaic construction.

“Its” is deprecated.

Downvote all you like; pedant tears are full of electrolytes.

Whiskey, Vodka, Tequila

What are you trying to accomplish with that?

I’ve got pangolin running on a VPS. It was dead simple.

Lordstown Motors got done in partially by its own management, partially by a short seller making an ass-ton of money by screwing them over. It had little to do with fleet customers.

I really wish EV manufacturers would get around to targeting fleet pickups. Generic, bare-bones, featureless trucks.

The Bollinger B1 and B2 were supposed to have exactly that. A central passthrough all the way from the back of the bed to the front bumper. You would have been able to haul 20’ lumber entirely within the vehicle.

Of course, their $125k price point for a no-frills electric work truck was twice as much as three-row luxury SUV pretty much doomed them from the start. If they had targeted a price point suitable for fleet operations, we’d all be driving them.

I think you lost the plot. This thread diverted to a discussion on the pitfalls of urbanization.

I think we are largely in agreement on the closed lane issue.

3 was not much of an assumption. Roads are very rarely exposed to their peak capacity. 99.9% of the time they have substantial capacity to absorb excess traffic. Your assumption that they cannot is that 0.1%.

Once the motoring public at large understands the method and utilizes it, the only way it doesn’t minimize t

False. Patently false. The degree of control required to prevent stoppages is not available to individual drivers. To avoid hitting cones, drivers near the end of the closing lane have to make rapid changes in speed to ensure they are lined up for a zipper merge. That means hard braking, and that braking ripples through to everyone behind, in both lanes. Zipper merging is the root cause of stop and go traffic.

That hard braking isn’t required when zippering at the beginning of the closure, because there is no hard obstacle to hit in the open lane.

At best, this zipper-at-the-end method “works” not by achieving any traffic benefit, but by setting the expectation for other drivers behavior.

The alternative to zipper-late is “no passing in work zones”. Your position is established at the time you enter the zone; you have between that time and the obstruction to merge, but you may not pass someone in the adjacent lane. There is no longer any benefit to racing ahead to the end of the lane. The zipper merge occurs shortly after the lane closure.

The upside of zipper-late is that there are fewer opportunities to be pissed off at “cheaters”. It is psychologically better. It reduces road rage.

The downside of zipper-late is everything related to traffic. It introduces far more disruption. It needlessly turns free-flowing traffic into stop-and-go. It endangers workers at or near the closure.

“No passing” is objectively better for traffic before and during the closure. It increases speeds and thus throughput. But it also makes it easy for everyone to identify and be pissed at “cheaters”. Those cheaters induce road rage, so we can’t have the superior traffic method. Instead, we have to normalize cheating and tolerate worse traffic.

We tolerate slower baggage handling and longer walks through the terminal when they move the baggage carousel further away from the gate, but we complain much less when they do that. Zipper-late works much the same. It worsens traffic, but trains us to be more tolerant of worse traffic.

Well, you’re in the right community.

If the roads have more cars on them, they’ll break faster and cost more effort to fix.

True, but irrelevant. The best metric for measuring a road is utility, not lifespan. The “best” road is the one with the highest traffic/cost ratio. You’re trying to decrease costs, but the way you’re doing it is by decreasing traffic. Your approach is actually worsening the utility ratio.

like the power and gas are made right next to your farm and you can just plug into it with a 100m cable

They are. The gas fields need power anyway, so they run the lines carrying gas to your city right alongside the lines carrying electricity to your city. Since the solar, the wind turbines, and the gas fields all need serviced from time to time, there are road along them as well. Dropping a small settlement here and there along the way reduces the housing burden, the traffic burden, and all the other burdens of rampant urbanization.

Now you just need to get water for your crops from elsewhere. I figure you’re not gonna want to use well water, because if there were enough water under your farm to feed the crops, you wouldn’t need irrigation.

Water wells might be the largest source of irrigation water. If they aren’t, they are second only to surface water: lakes and rivers. Nobody uses treated water for irrigation.

But if we’re talking about 300 people’s houses, we can do better than a 300 off-grid solar setups. We can build an economy of scale.

Yeah. We tap into the lines running from the various power sources in the countryside to the industrial centers, and use them to power our pleasant, rural settlements.

We can build row houses

Yeah, that’s that medium density stuff you were talking about. Not dense enough to justify infrastructure investment into public transit, but too dense to simply be happy in your own home. The kind of housing that maximizes tax revenue to governments and rent to slumlords, while minimizing public services. The kind of housing that carries the worst attributes of both the suburbs and the urban centers, with none of the benefits of either. Contrast with rural living: massive improvements in wireless internet and a building Work-From-Home culture means you don’t have to commute anymore. You don’t have to go into the central office for your daily grind. Less commuting, less travel, enough space for a workshop, a deep freezer, a craft room. An actual vegetable garden: A garden where you have to decide what to can, freeze, or dehydrate for winter. A garden that feeds you for months. Not the potted plants on your back porch that might give you a couple tomato slices for a burger and some peppers to add to a salad.

We can run trams instead of electric cars and waste far less energy moving metal vehicles around.

Medium-density row housing doesn’t provide enough demand for trams, let alone trains. You might get buses. You don’t get the benefits of public transport until residences go vertical and you’re literally living on top of eachother.

Better than public transport is “Just stay home”. But that’s not really an option when you don’t have space to do anything at home, and you have to travel for any hint of enjoyment.

You’d have a point if you were getting rid of the roads. But you’re not. You’re leaving them underutilized, out in the boondocks, where they are needed and used to service farms and mines and everything else your urban centers require. Those same roads serving population densities of <10 people per square mile are readily capable of serving population densities of 320 people per square mile. So, again, why not spread out? Why cram ourselves in like sardines, where we need buses and trains and trams and subways and rentable scooters littered everywhere?

You’ve still got that centralization mindset…

Electrical power. In your head, electrical power is in the city, and we need to take a little bit out to a farm house. We don’t want to take a big-ass cable out to a big rural community, because that would be wasteful.

The electrical power produced in the city is a coal-fired plant in the heavy industrial sector. That is not the kind of power we need.

The kind of power we need is produced by big-ass solar generators out near the farmland. It’s produced by big-ass wind turbines out near the farmland. It’s supported by big-ass pumped-storage facilities out near the farmland. This kind of power needs big-ass cables out to the rural areas. You don’t want to build big-ass cables out toward the farmland; big-ass cables are exactly what we need to bring power from the farmland to the cities.

Gas. Gas isn’t produced in the cities. Gas comes from wells scattered throughout rural areas, and flows toward the cities. The gas lines you don’t want to build are the ones that supply the city.

I’ve already addressed internet, but I’ll hit it again: Wireless works better out of town. In town, it is subject to all sorts of interference from everyone trying to use it at once. You need the cables in the city because the available EM spectrum is not nearly enough to meet the needs of that dense populace. Out in the rural areas, where interfering signals are physically separated, there is much more bandwidth available per person.

We wouldn’t need to build a 6 lane elevated highway, we could just make a simple two lane asphalt road with reflector posts.

Those simple, two-lane asphalt roads can handle much more than 320 people per square mile. Those simple roads would be much better utilized by increasing rural densities to the human average, rather than leaving them grossly underutilized. 6-lane elevated highways are features of the medium and high density urban areas, not rural.