Probably because the 1TB of storage you get with Microsoft 365 (or whatever it is called now) for <$100/year is more space than most computers come with.
I’ve had OneDrive for a very long time, and there was a couple of years where they didn’t have the files on demand feature as they rewrote the OneDrive client. It was a major regression for me.
If you don’t like that behavior, you can always just check the box to sync everything. I do that on my machine that has 2TB of storage.
I download an attachment from a colleague. I edit it and save it. I try to send the updated file back via outlook... And it says the file is not available.
This is one of the most basic operations that people do! Why does it not work?
Why would I need to go back in and tell it to keep it locally for when it was local in the first place!?
It's absolutely inane shit like this that drives me up a wall with Microsoft. Do these people use their own products?
You don't know in advance what is going to make you money. Investments are risky.
In 2026, we know that SpaceX is a huge success. In 2002, it was just one of very many space startups, the vast majority of which ended up bankrupt, and before the last Falcon 1 flight, it was already on the brink of bankruptcy. They were incredibly lucky that the last rocket they had money for actually reached orbit.
During the same time, John Carmack invested into Armadillo Aerospace, and lost money.
Was he less "greedy" than Musk only because in retrospect we know that one didn't pan out and the other did? Or were they both simply risk takers in an uncertain field, motivated by a mix of incentives?
That is a complete distraction from Meta in particular selling social media hard to kids even knowing that their work explicitly caused mental harm.
This is not a I own stock am I culpable issue, it is a company knowing their product is dangerous and ignoring the issues because it doesn't make them more money.
Same shit as the tobacco industry. People do banally evil shit for money.
You're not wrong. It's almost a religious fervor. And much like so many religious figures, you get a sort of Rorschach test on how you use/view it.
Is it a tool? Is it going to make humans obsolete?
Doesn't matter because if you don't praise and adore AI the [market|capital] will leave you behind.
It's pervasive as fuck. I go into stores with local artists and can't help but think what of this was made with AI. It draws me more towards physical things that cannot have been tainted.
If you asked me I'd have said there is a religious fervor against AI. Everyone seems to have weird superstitious shaking terror of AI. It's a tool, an incredibly transformative tool, and potentially also a lifeform. What's not to be excited about it? I don't care much whether something was made with an AI assistance. Do you check your furniture for if it was made in a CNC mill? What about a circular saw, is that bad? Handsaws? That's still incredibly high tech, the kind of steel for panel style saws was only really perfected in the 18th century. If it has the shape and structure of a table, its a table to me. If it has the shape and structure of a painting, its a painting to me.
Do most clients do a constant throughput or do they do bursts? Because speed does matter a lot if it's burst (send 100MB to fill a buffer, then wait). The faster you fill whatever buffer, the faster you can let another client use the connection.
Correlated, but obviously bad code can really fuck with neighbors. And each client has an incentive to be greedy so users of that client get a better experience. So you fall back again to QOS for what you care about..
> The faster you fill whatever buffer, the faster you can let another client use the connection.
Basically this. They way we usually put it is that we want clients to "get on and off the channel as quickly as possible". That requires all clients in range of each other to be behaving (respecting the rules) and using fast enough data rates to minimise their consumption of precious air-time.
Under the hood though, it's a very granular frame-by-frame, almost nanosecond-by-nanosecond thing that leads to the overall throughput at a human timescale. To give you a sense, let me try to summarise the factors affecting throughput this way:
- Data Rate: the transmitting client can adjust the data rate of each frame up or down per frame if they want. For example, a single TCP session on a 2.4GHz channel could in theory see data rates everywhere between 1Mbps and 450Mbps. But in practice most drivers I've seen adjust up or down incrementally. And in a healthy network, they usually hover around the top 25% of the mutually supported data rates (but they also spend very little time at the highest data rate, typically less than 1%). Also the AP could be using different data rate to the client, and usually is. The rx and tx directions are effectively separate streams and data rate is always chosen solely by the transmitter.
- Block Size: Similar to TCP windowing. Data can be sent in multi-frame 'bursts' before an acknowledgement is required by the transmitter for it send more. In the original Wi-Fi, every frame had to be acknowledged. Later standards introduced this idea of block acknowledgements.
- Re-transmits: Whenever acknowledgements are not received, the data has to be resent. Block size will be reduced, possibly to 1, so it will also take longer. Note that re-transmits are expected and very routine in Wi-Fi, whereas in TCP they are usually considered more of an exception (except on the internet). I've observed re-transmit rates of 20% in networks where no user is perceiving any sort of issue at all. So Wi-Fi is very robust to frame loss, up to a point, but even so, re-transmits do end up having a large impact on the aggregate throughput.
- Clear channel wait time: It's no exaggeration to say that transmitters spend most of their _waiting_ to transmit. And a big chunk of that wait time is just waiting for the medium to be clear - the clear channel assessment. If the client thinks there is a transmission going on, it just has to kill time.
- Other wait times: Even when the channel seems clear, there are various requirements to do nothing before and after transmitting. For example, the inter-frame spacing interval and the random back-off interval. These are just the rules of play. In fact, congestion avoidance on Wi-Fi could be said to be entirely a matter of timing.
Note that these are a simplification and clearly I can't mention everything or cover all the nuances. But, in the way I've framed it here, the clear-channel wait time and the re-transmit rate do basically encapsulate the impact of intangibles I didn't mention, like congestion and noise/interference.
TLDR; Wi-Fi transmissions are extremely lumpy at their native timescale, but many seem a lot smoother than many TCP transmissions at human timescales.
> Correlated, but obviously bad code can really fuck with neighbors.
Also true. Bad code is usually exemplified in Wi-Fi by bad drivers (looking at you Broadcom). These will cause clients to "stick" to bad APs when they should roam, or pick the wrong channel/AP/band in the first place. Intel is generally very good.
> And each client has an incentive to be greedy so users of that client get a better experience.
Greed is good in the sense that clients want to transmit their data as soon and as fast as possible and we want them too! But they have to respect the rules. Of course there's only a handful of chipset vendors so they mostly do. But within that, there's still plenty of room for clients and APs to do things that are _sub-optimal_ even if they are Wi-Fi legal, as per the sticky client example I mentioned.
> So you fall back again to QOS for what you care about..
Wi-Fi does indeed have its own implementation of QoS which is of course a timing dance! But I think you're referring to QoS in higher layers like IP. So it's worth mentioning that this WiFi stuff is all happening at layers 1 & 2. All the congestion detection and re-transmissions and so on that may be happening in higher-layer protocols like TCP are happening _in addition_ to what is going on at the WiFi layers.
Do you seriously believe that is not happening now? Or that even a libertarian utopia could manage to achieve agreement?
If you're going to get philosophical, go all the way. Why have society at all because it's just people imposing their will on others? Or do you at least agree that there exists a line?
Even though there clearly must be a line on some topics, many people think those lines should be placed to minimize the number of times people are forced to do something (or prevented from doing something) against their will.
It’s not at all obvious that “adults can’t have TikTok” is anywhere near the correct side of that line.
Why are my files I created on my local device not on my device
reply