I've been doing this with rclone. https://github.com/rclone/rclone

I manually run it to sync my important files (which I modify on my Desktop) up to Google Drive (which serves as a web accessible backup).

I remember once getting a book of Murray Bookchin's collected works (or something from the library). I had assumed that his social ecology would fit well with my environmental interests (it was environmentalism that led me to anti-capitalism which led me to communism). Anyway long story short I couldn't understand a word of what he was saying. It was english words, but it's like it wasn't english sentences. To some extent it's similar in ML circles -- we use certain words in ways that are different. But it honestly just seemed like drivel. If anyone can summarize it for me or link an article that explains it I would appreciate it, as I've heard that Murray Bookchin's writings have also been adopted by some middle east factions (but I don't recall any details, so don't quiz me please).

pigginz has a valid viewpoint. Most people I've given this advice to respond in similar ways. I think it comes down to two fundamental conflicts, the first is about "Being true to yourself" vs doing otherwise.

Did you see the Barbie movie? There is this great quote:

"You're not your girlfriend. You're not your house, you're not your mink. [Ken] Beach? [Barbie] Nope. You're not even beach. Maybe all the things that you thought made you you aren't really you"

The idea is that "you are you", and it's more fundamental than superficial things like your clothes, body, job, conversational skills, etc. But if this is true, the idea cuts both ways: if "you" are not any of these things then you may change any of these things and still be true to yourself (because these things are not you!). Sort of absurd. "You" in some sense includes your capabilities, relationships (with people and property), your job, fashion sense, your family, your history, etc. But in a more immediate sense, I think "you" must certainly include your actions. Ken in that movie was an asshole because he acted like one.

So "being true to yourself" vs not is a factor whenever you change your actions. You choose to go to the gym. You choose to talk to strangers . You choose to leave the house. Perhaps you feel that making these choices will have violated your integrity, but I feel that's hard to sustain which will become clearer when we look at the second fundamental conflict: Is it immoral to choose to act this way?

I would posit that you choose to do these things because you desire a certain outcome. That in itself isn't immoral, because that's why we're all communists. We act certain ways (e.g. by reading books, posting, organizing) because we hope to achieve a certain outcome (a better society). But some actions are certainly immoral: but it depends on both the action and the motivation behind it. For example if you become a life guard because you want to save people, that's moral. If you become a life guard because you intend to let a select few hated enemies drown, that's immoral.

It's immoral to lie and/or pretend to be something you are not, but it's moral to present yourself as well you can, as far and wide as you can, because you want to attract a partner. But morality requires you to act with honesty, consideration and care towards others.

It's not a meme. It works. Especially for men in their 20's and 30's.

It's kind of like low cost insurance. People have a natural tendency to eat a similar calorie amount everyday. Society talks about mesomorphs, endomorphs, ectomorphs, but as far as I can tell there is no science backing this (instead these differences arise from the different daily calorie amounts). So GOMAD basically ensures a beginning weight trainer is getting enough healthy calories for muscle growth. It combats the "hard-gainer" phenomenon.

I'm sorry you got the wind knocked out of your sails. But you did mostly right, good instincts.

First it was good that you didn't make a move on her on the beach in front of all her friends. You're unlikely to progress a relationship in front of a peer group. The risk is too high: that they'll be judged, or that it'll ruin other relationships with those peers.

Second you accepted the rejection with grace. This is good, as it's never worthwhile to put someone you say you care about through a bad time. Besides, a rejection is usually less about you than you might think. For example:

• She might have a boyfriend or have her eye on someone else.
• She might not want a long distance relationship.
• Maybe you've got a habit she doesn't like (e.g. smoking or something)
• Maybe she's not looking for a relationship at all. Maybe she just got out of a bad one.
• Maybe a friend of hers is in crisis and she has too much to deal with.
• Maybe she wants to be unattached to move elsewhere in world after university.

Anyway my advice would be to move on (mentally -- don't like physically change houses). The easiest way to do that is to date other people... to that end I have some practical advice I can offer you.

First your increase your chances at attracting a partner if you are healthy and fit. This answers any potential deal-breakers about your fitness, lifestyle, potential as a parent, etc. So eat a lot of lean chicken and vegetables, and commit to drinking 4 litres of whole milk each day every third week and lift heavy weights (e.g. Stronglifts or Starting Strength).

Second, learn how to talk. This is hard, but force yourself to say something to a complete stranger every day. Later increase the difficultly (say something to someone near to your age, say something to a woman every day, compliment a stranger, compliment a woman stranger). Keep track of your progress and keep practicing and it gets easier.

Third, live an interesting life. Avoid being at home in the evening. Take a dance class, join a dance crews, pick-up an instrument an go to open-mic night, karaoke, join a social group (via meetup?) for your age group.

Anyway, if you've done 1, 2, 3 then you should be meeting and talking to potential partners regularly. You'll be in peak physical condition and not at all nervous... and you'll do just fine.

As oscardejarjayes has said, the $10 isn't for computer resources, it's mostly to pay the customer facing domain registrars and disincentivize squatting domains. Each subdomain (.com, .ca, .uk, etc) is controlled by some entity and for national domains part of the fee is a tax set by and collected for that nation.

In terms of the "compute" required for the DNS -- that's actually your internet service provider. ISPs synchronize and serve up DNS locally in order to give you faster internet (so users pay for DNS indirectly). You might have switched your domain to 8.8.8.8 (Google's DNS servers) which Google provides for free in order to try to speed up peoples internet access.

I don't think blockchain is a suitable for DNS (or for anything actually).

To "run a blockchain" requires a lot of infrastructure. At a minimum I think you need communication between all the participants (otherwise how would one tell the others it has successfully produced the next block?) and you need some kind of pool of waiting registrations that they can all access (otherwise what would they build a block from?).

The block chain is just a ledger, and a ledger is a terrible format for DNS data because it requires scanning every ledger record to find a match (so it scales linearly with the number of times anyone modifies a DNS entry). To solve this any real DNS will need to covert the ledger into an internal database. I would think all this complexity would raise costs, not lower them.

The existent DNS (a simple distributed hierarchical database) is replaced by a voluminous distributed ledger system. This change by itself doesn't resolve any of the problems you mentioned.

You've said a few other things that don't make technical sense:

• "hosting fees will decrease": A .com or .org DNS domain name is about $10 a year and is independent of the amount of traffic you have. Different DNS subdomains also charge different amounts, so it's mostly a nominal fee.
• "A domain must keep a minimum amount of traffic": There is no accurate tracking of traffic to a domain name because it's often cached (this is why you're advised to wait multiple hours after making DNS changes to see the effects).

I think you are conflating hosting with DNS. The DNS is just the resolution of a human readable string to a bunch of keywords (e.g. www server addresses, mail addresses, metadata tags, etc). Hosting is providing the necessary servers and bandwidth to deliver the services (like email, websites, torrents, etc).