crazy how trains take 37 years of committees but a million flock cameras and data centers can go up in a month

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 2 months ago (57 children)

Real answer? Because train lines cut through a lot of land and every landowner along the route can hold up progress with legal objections. Flock cameras are just attached to poles and data centres are compact.

  • source
  • hideshow 57 child comments
  • [–] [S] 70 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    There's a saying : "Where there's a will, there's a way"

    Big tech are using every trick in their book to circumvent regulations and to continue building data centers despite local community disapproval over noise, pollution and a myriad of other problems...

    Of course, since data centers are (according to the DOJ), "a matter of national, economic, and energy security", doesn't matter even if they are ran by illegal gas turbines.

    And they're not so small

    Also, this consideration for others property.... man it would have been nice to have had it when the US was building highways through black communities...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    using every trick in their book to circumvent regulations and to continue building

    when the US was building highways through black communities

    The US building highways through black communities is a big part of why we have committees that can hold up rail development. And do you really want a government that uses "every trick in the book" to build railroads? No! You want a government that follows its own rules both in letter and in spirit, and one that reigns in the excesses of the market economy when necessary, and one that simply writes better laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    And they're not so small

    They're not small, but they're one plot of land, not a line spending potentially hundreds of miles and tens of thousands of individual real estate parcels that each require purchasing or litigation to acquire. Which needs to be done before most of the actual work can even begin.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, but if you look at the most egregious example of this, California high speed rail, at this point they've cleared most of the legal hurdles and have the land.

    They still don't have an end date in sight though because of lack of investment. They get a slow trickle from California carbon tax but not much else. They'll occasionally get a grant from the federal government only to have it rescinded when Trump gets in office.

    The slow trickle from the carbon tax is enough to complete the flat part in maybe 6 years, but the part where they'll have to bore long tunnels through mountains to get to LA or San Francisco is impossible without a large investment.

    Meanwhile there's no shortage of investment going to data centers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    China was capable of doing it. Oh, but they have central planning and blah blah blah. Yeah, let's do that then. Let's lay some track. If "freedom" means no functional transit but se still get the surveillance state. And "China bad no freedom" means you get a surveillance state but also get functional transit I'll take Chinas system please. If I'm gonna have cameras watching me wherever I go; I'd at least like to be able to actually go somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    On the Flock cameras, pretty much agreed.

    Data centers are a bit more interesting. Sure the land itself is "find a willing landowner or handful in a sea of any land that would be equally ok", but then you have supporting infrastructure. Perhaps not as large of a route to secure, and more flexibility to make pretty sharp turns and such, but still lots of room for people to get in the way of a critical dependency. So surely the datacenters are having issues getting power to their facilities in the face of so many people around their property not wanting to give up their land right? No solution for that.

    Oh yeah, if they won't sell their property to facilitate it, the government will just take it over: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ripple/2026/07/16/when-can-a-power-company-take-your-land-for-a-data-center/

    So yes, in both datacenter and train, people can make it very hard to get things done. Somehow they find a way for the datacenters...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You as missing the scale problem, here. A data center, hell 1000 massive data centers still aren't going to take up the land that rail does. Its why you lay down rail first, then build around it, rather than destroying things to put rail in after. So yes, if you are going to magically put all this high speed rail in places people don't live directly on with trains that don't go places people want to be, then it's a great comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    There should be some stuff where high speed rail is, but it only should connect hubs and cities, most who give up land will not feel a direct benefit, since for most there should be buses and trains getting them to a high speed rail stop. There is a 36k town with a HSR stop ~60-90min with public transport. To the HSR stop actually 15 more minutes because it was built outside and has shuttle buses, but they also built more and supermarket, fasfood etc around it over the years so it becomes a more and more interesting destination. There was no meaningful way to add it to the existing train stations. Meaning you can definitely connect such stuff in a useful way. But there are also political issues and this line probably got more stops already then it should. HSR is just really best with few spaced out stops, but districts and states don't really like it when infrastructure is built through their territory, but they don’t get any stops

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (44 children)

    That’s definitely a contributing factor. I remember the train line near my city… it took longer to buy up all the land than to actually build it. It might seem the same all building a road, but there are significantly more constraints, and a road benefits everyone around it, while trains only benefit Oriole at the train station.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (43 children)

    Roads make life worse for everyone around them. I wish there were more barriers to building roads! You should have to get consent of everyone living within 200m to pollute the air they breathe. And I don't mean the landlord, I mean the tenants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (42 children)

    Let me be more precise: Roads provide transportation for anyone next to them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    No they don't. I don't have a car. You think I'm gonna walk down the new freeway they build next to My home? Maybe I'll rollerblade down it.

    Traditional roads provide transportation to everyone, but those don't need a big government project to build. All you need is a pair of shoes, and you'll wear a road into the dirt over time.

    Roads built for cars? They isolate us. They put a deadly barrier between you and your neighbours. Keep your kids inside and give them a phone, it's dangerous out on the street! Pay attention when you're outside and don't wear headphones or look at your phone. And if you have impaired vision or movement? Then fuck you, get run over. Even if you're healthy, you have to wait at a traffic light just to cross the street in some places. Roads slow down movement for people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Exactly. Here's a visual representation of what we sacrifice to roads. And that's only the standard 1 lane either direction road. Imagine the chasm if it were depicting a multi-lane highway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    How much room do you need to walk? Go to any park and the trails through the wildlife is barely a foot wide. The argument doesn’t work, we do what we can to minimize the space we use when out in nature already, yet now we are gonna claim we need everything? That’s hypocrisy.

    Roads are needed to transport goods and services at a reasonable cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    That's assuming that, first, as a common area, the space roads take up would be only used for walking, and second, that this is a low density area.

    Some streets - mostly commercial ones - have heavy foot traffic and sidewalks are always flush with people. Having the whole street available as a pedestrian is much more comfortable for everyone, and it also give spaces for art, activities, lounging areas, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    How do you think your food and other needs gets to you, what do buses operate on? How does your mail get delivered.

    You use roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Buses are shit. They're a way to shoehorn transit into a network built for cars, and they can never be faster than the cars because they're in the same traffic. (BRT is a special thing to solve this problem.) It would be a net gain if buses went away along with the cars.

    My mail gets delivered by a guy walking.

    Roads and streets built for food delivery vehicles would need to be far smaller, and less extensive. And all of the land for parking lots and interchanges and turn lanes and drive-thrus and gas stations...

    This "you use roads" argument falls flat when the car industry and drivers arrogated all of the space and forced it upon us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    My mail gets delivered by a guy walking

    How many packages do you think the guy can carry at once? Every block as a box that the guy walks to and collects to deliver before moving onto the next. Do you think that they’ve walked all the way from the postal office to your house with your mail…? You can’t seriously think that do you?

    How do you think those get supplied? Your coffee shop? How did they get the utilities in to provide everything to the block?

    You just don’t understand distribution and concept of scale. The argument only falls flat if you ignore major points along the way, like how the mail gets to your guy that walks. Or how those shops get supplies for the food delivery trucks.

    And instead of that, why not multi use high rises? The bottom floor has a coffee shop, grocery store, and other amenities, how would you supply those without a road…?

    You gotta look past your own nose and see the entire picture dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Actually, I live less than half a mile from the post office. I used to work next to it, doing deliveries myself. The carrier brings mail and packages in a van, and parks it at the end of the block, and walks around the neighborhood. For big packages, he may pull up in front of a house. And to do that, all that he needs is a lane maybe 12 feet wide.

    Yet, the street in front of my house has a standard 64-foot wide right-of-way. The pavement is nearly 40 feet wide, so that two cars can pass in opposite directions, with cars parked on either side. It's stupidly big for a residential street, and of course leads to people speeding like mad while using it as a commuter rat-run. It's noisy and dangerous, and polluting.

    I never said anything about abolishing all vehicles. But between the postal carrier, the buses, the garbage, and recycling trucks, about 50 vehicles a day through here would be reasonable. Instead, it's closer to 2,500. There's no reason all those people need a 4,500lb. vehicle just because the postal carrier needs a van.

    Oh, the really funny part is that the street is also a bicycle boulevard; somebody's idea of a sick joke, I think, but still better than the arterial streets. Anyway, there's a local roaster, Cargo Coffee, that delivers their product by cargo bike. I see the delivery guy pedal by here all the time. As well as at least one CSA that delivers by cargo bike.

    The coffee shops don't even need cars to get their beans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    he carrier brings mail and packages in a van, and parks it at the end of the block, and walks around the neighborhood.

    So they do need roads!

    the coffee shop doesn’t need road to get beans.

    And just how much more do you think your $1 cup of coffee would be than…? It’s gonna be probably $30-50 dollars. Of course if you don’t think about costs or how it can directly affect you, you can argue whatever you want.

    You don’t need a house to live in either now do you? Look past your nose before making asinine comments like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    Ahh yes, the classic 'I live in a city, so obviously everything can be dense and done by human power alone'. Except for the massive amount of people who don't. I have incredibly few areas in the US or even Europe where no cars or no roads are needed. Can you reduce your reliance on them with a lot of changes? Sure. Can you eliminate them? No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    We didn't need cars 200 years ago and we don't need them today. Has our technology turned our entire society into a finely tuned swiss watch with no tolerance for change? No! We have better technology than ever for living without cars. Look at this stuff:

    It's easier than ever for town planners to design a small rural town that doesn't need cars.

    The only cars I support are fire trucks and ambulances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    If you pay people who deliver that way an affordable wage, it’s not cost effective in today’s world.

    Not having roads only work when slaves are involved and you don’t care about human life. We’ve moved past that point in history, mostly. But some people always seem to point to it and try to say it’s better. This is the people here.

    Yes there is absolutely other ways to move stuff, no one is saying their isn’t, but are you prepared to pay $50 for coffee or to have nothing other than corn and corn byproducts to eat….? Because that’s the world without the benefit and efficiency of mass hauling on roads. And sure, use slaves to still deliver, because that’s the only way it’s affordable for you. It’s not how the worlds worked for a long ass time now. That’s all we are trying to get people like you to comprehend. If you support slaves so you can have your coffee, you’ve lost it.

    Roads make things more affordable, when people are paid a living a wage instead of being in poverty or slaves, yes there is other ways to move stuff, but… yeah see above lmfao.

    Do you think people would rather haul stuff out of the mountains on foot? Or just have a central place to drop it, they could probably haul out 5x as much in a single day. Instead of 2 baskets. Because one is only doable with roads. But sure, work that guy to the bone so you can have cheap coffee. It’s called the scale of economics, it’s been known for centuries at this point, but when you don’t need to pay….

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You're full of shit. 300 years ago, My neighbourhood didn't have roads, slaves, or even money. Everyone was equal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Were they free to go elsewhere? Could they without the transportation to make it? How many died while doing so? How could they afford it or afford something like a bike or a boat? Did they even know other places existed and what was there? It probably wasn’t the best life either.

    There’s more than way to be slaved to a place, if you don’t make “money”, or can’t move elsewhere because various reasons. You’re not free.

    You’re not looking at this broad enough. You’re too fixated on yourself. The rose colored glasses some people have of the past is just astounding.

    And without money, what are you? A slave, you contradict yourself in your own statements. Every community has a currency of some sort, everyone’s time is valued, or you are the textbook definition of a slave dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    You don't have a car. Do you receive packages? If you called for medical help, how would it get to you? Most folks if they don't have a car at least want option for a bus, which requires roads. We can't build rail to reach every household (you said freeway next to your home, so that doesn't sound like it's a very downtown situation).

    Perhaps there shouldn't be as many cars on it as you deal with, but the roads themselves..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    I mean so to trains or any other transportation system. And without those transportation systems, you wouldn't be able to live the life you currently have. Are vehicles the best way to do it? Probably not. Are trains the best way to do it? nope. The best would be to have a blend of all things, and one that works for the majority rather than the minority, but thats difficult especially when one form gains traction over others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (19 children)

    They provide more than transportation. Take a coffee shop, for example. How are they going to get their coffee without road access?

    The road provides transportation for the coffee delivery truck, yes, but it also provides coffee for everyone who visits the coffee shop. Without a road, there is no coffee to drink, and therefore no coffee shop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Plenty of European and Middle Eastern cities already have pedestrianised streets that still allow vehicles in for deliveries with a 10 - 20mph speed limit. They're often not "through roads" (e.g. bollards at one end) and can be cobbled to prevent people using them as normal roads.

    It returns the streets to the people whilst still allowing deliveries in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (17 children)

    Same way that humans used to do it for millennia before the invention of automobiles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Roads pre-date automobiles by thousands of years. The original claim wasn’t about automobiles, it was about roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    So they simply didn't exist. That's how that worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    As I pointed out to another person, coffee was a worldwide commodity by the 18th century, and a flourishing coffee culture. Coffee shops most certainly did exist!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

    By growing their own food since there wasn’t any supply routes….? Or you’re waiting months for something the next county over? What if it spoils on the way? Robbed? Weather takes it out?

    You’re making stuff out to be way to simple of a thing, it’s not black and white. What if you want coffee? Options other than wheat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

    Europe had coffeehouses in the 17th century, and it became a world-wide commodity by the end of the 18th century, about 200 years before the invention of cars.

    (Reminds me of hearing Johann Sebastian Bach's Coffee Cantata not long ago.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Uhh… you mean the slaves back than…? And the slaves they continue to use in the coffee trade…?

    It’s only affordable because of the slaves, still is, pay everyone an liveable wage along the way, and that’s not happening.

    Sure, shipping is easy when you don’t need to pay and the lives of people don’t matter. But hey, you get your coffee, cheap too!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Roads go back to the Roman Empire and earlier. By the 17th century, road networks were highly developed.

    Nobody was supplying coffee houses by hauling sacks of coffee beans on foot through forests, fields, and river fords. They had ships on the ocean, barges on canals, and wagons on roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    For sure. Know how much a cup of coffee was inflation adjusted? Roughly $10-15. On top of that those 'coffee houses' weren't remotely close to what you have today. They were bulk brewed diluted black coffee with no sugar or other condiments because those too were expensive. A cup of coffee for the common man in 1700 was roughly 10% of his daily wage. Not exactly sure what point you are even trying to make here though, especially considering the highest cost for getting coffee in the 1700s up to the invention of the car was you guessed it, transportation costs. Invention of the car and transportation networks, why look at that, the price of coffee and other non-local agriculture products plummeted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    That's bizarrely incorrect. According to the Bank of England inflation calculator, the cost for a cup in, 18th century Britain would be equivalent to £1.57 now.

    But I'm glad you asked about the point, which is: A functioning, healthy society (with coffee shops, even) does not require everybody driving their private vehicle everywhere, for every function of daily life. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, given that we can draw some pretty direct lines from a car-dominated landscape to the affordability crisis. We could have good lives without streets and roads filled with high-speed traffic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Considering coffee is only cheap because of slaved workers, you’re incredibly missing the point.

    Coffee is only affordable because of mass transport, and that’s only after the slave work is done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Somebody made a ridiculous claim that coffee shops can only occur in the presence of cars, when they predate cars by hundreds of years, but I'm missing the point?

    There are lots of problems with the global coffee trade, and always have been. That doesn't change the fact that logistics and personal transport are two very different processes, and the OC was right, roads full of speeding traffic are bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    LOL bud, you may want to actually read a little more into history instead of assuming from a single calculator. Can you name a single country that lives good lives without streets with traffic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I did read the history out of curiosity after being surprised at hearing Bach's cantata.

    I can name several such places. The United States, for one. The Census Bureau declared the frontier closed in 1890. That is, the continent was fully-settled from coast to coast before automobiles were a thing. Immigration was in full swing because the country was becoming an economic powerhouse. People lived quite well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    In addition, passenger trains are only really useful if they both start and end in built-up urban areas. A train between a ranch in Nebraska and a potato field in Idaho is not going to be serving many passengers.

    That means that some of the key land needed for trains is going to be some of the most valuable land there is.

    That's one reason why authoritarian regimes like China have a much easier time building train routes.

    Getting datacentres built would take a lot longer if it was necessary to build them in big city downtown areas like you need for a main train station.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The US built its highway system in a very ruthless and efficient manner using Eminent Domain. Hundreds of communities were ripped out to place the infrastructure used for cars that most travelers unfortunately have to use today. Imagine doing that one more time over less densely populated land to lower demand for highways and possibly restoring some community space instead.

    China did it and it vastly improved connectivity between remote cities in little time. Mexico also did away with a lot of the red tape associated with building railways and finished its Tren Maya project connecting the entire perimeter of its side of the Yucatan Peninsula in just five years.

    Money in politics is the real reason the US doesn't have high speed rail yet still has a shitty digital panopticon.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 27 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 45 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Who'd a guessed a ginormous and expensive public infrastructure project that requires meticulous long term planning and the acquisition of literally thousands of privately owned pieces of land (often through long and expensive legal processes, sometimes spanning various different jurisdictions) takes longer than bolting a couple thousand plastic boxes onto poles, or building what's essentially a large-ish industrial facility?

    I am a big fan of rail transport. Use it more than my car because it's just better. But let's be real.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Corruption does speed up the build process. Create a secret rail line plan outlining the land that will need to be bought, they allow a select few of the wealthy to buy up all that land. Then announce the construction plan letting the new land owners sell their land to the state/government at huge mark up. No need for public debate, expensive legal process just good ol' corruption getting the job done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, this unfortunately

    It will take while for train based infrastructure to be but. I’m cautiously optimistic about trains and rail based transportation, but it will take a long time to build in the USA due to its toxic car culture and privately owned land

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    tell the methheads that flock cameras have copper in them and they'll dissapear within the next week

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    It's because those camera were just thrown up and not cunsulted with by townships. They didn't even bother trying to do things the legal way, they just banked on getting permission later.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Why aren't private companies pushing trains? They could make so much money. No?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Because it is a complex business model. Well actually two. Freight railroads work by transporting a load of freight from one location to another one far away. Massive long trains can easily transport as much as a 100 trucks. So scale makes it worth it, but for a lot of cargo it is truck -> train -> truck, which means you need a certain distance to make it significantly shorter not to go by truck directly. So a freight railroad needs to build a long railroad to make it worth it and that is a huge initial investment.

    For passengers you can see the model in Japan. Basically it is a real estate company improving its land value by offering a better rail connection.

    Both require a lot of money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    rocks rocks everywhere so let's all play a game

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Because railways cut through the landscape and cameras don’t. Lots of people get up and protest against plans to put a railway through their neighbourhood. For safety it needs to be completely fenced off, otherwise the speed of the train needs to be heavily reduced through that area.

    A fenced off section of track is a completely impassable barrier to pedestrians that needs expensive accommodation (bridges or tunnels) to get around.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I mean that's part of it....... but not the whole picture. States are more than willing to utilize eminent domain when some company wants to install a new 6 lane tolled expressway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Seriously. These comments, I swear. They've already tried or have used imminent domain to get the stupid ass data centers built.. It's not a pipe dream, they just can't fathom it being used for something better than privacy invading bullshit. Crazy people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Yeap, the government has pretty sweeping powers to build infrastructure when they want too. The public transit sectors just don't have the ability to write the same checks that fossil fuel and car lobbyist regularly make.

    Hell most cities don't even have any art deco buildings that they built in the 30s because they all got bulldozed to build highways in the 60s. It wasn't long ago that we were completely reshaping cities around certain kinds of transportation systems, it's not impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Trains are like, complicated. Though?

    Trains need less RAM, maybe. I'm fairly sure trains run on sticks and rocks and vacuum tubes. Not wise, but less RAM for sure

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    This image has nothing to do with fuckcars, but promote more USA politics over cameras.

  • source