People are just going to get sick of the Internet, if they haven’t already, and start to look at it like a necessary evil they have to use to do certain things instead of what it once was which was fun and exciting. It’s sad.
A much larger segment of people than you think are already off. You just don’t hear about them, because, well, they aren’t online. Lmao
Yep. The internet is becoming what a mailbox in real life is. An abused gateway that has a narrow set of legitimate uses.
At least we’re not burning dead dinosaurs (and plankton) to deliver dead trees.
You mean this with /s right? Cause AI is burning lots of dead dinosaurs. More than snailp mail I’d wager but I didn’t do the math.
Snail mail is delivered by guys in trucks / jeeps - sometimes on foot, still lots of fuel to carry around all that glossy printed (mostly uneconomical to recycle) paper. Per unit-information carried, snail mail has enormously higher environmental impact.
Now, if you feel special enough to think you have your own personal LLM agents targeting you with web advertising… maybe that’s costing the same as your share of sending the mail truck around to you - but I don’t think the internet marketers are quite there with burning the tokens just to try to hit you, personally, with offers you can’t refuse. Mostly you’re just a statistic in the bigger algorithms that fill your feed from troughs A, R and X.
We will have private mesh nets
Overlay networks are also feasable.
funded by whom? (legitimate question)
Currently private users and enthusiasts. As networks grow, there will probably be universities joining. Eventually corporations will start marketing plug and play equipment while selling access to server space and long distance connections. Other businesses will join and finance their services by selling subscriptions, advertising, and user data. Various government agencies will add hardware they can also use to track traffic. Someone will inevitably bring in bots, AI models, and internet connected devices. After that someone will coin the term “dead mesh network theory” and all the nerdlings will start developing the next knitted network or something.
The catalyst there is businesses (and to a degree governments).
I used to pay attention to my physical mail. Then it was all “junk mail” and the signal-to-noise ratio got hard to manage.
I migrated the important stuff to “electronic mail”, where I had a curated list of people and entities that sent me items, so I could focus on things that were important. Then my address/mailbox became common knowledge and that filled with “spam”.
I started using SMS/text for the important stuff. But that also became a common place to send me stuff I didn’t care about, so I used specific apps on my phone that had permission to notify me when something needed attention, and now my phone gives me so many notifications I just ignore them all.
Our attention is the prize, and it won’t matter where our attention goes: The businesses will follow.
The same will hold true for connectivity. If the current internet becomes a wasteland and we migrate to Mesh, then it’s only a matter of time before corporate interests take that over too; then knitted, or fabric, or the glob.
The solution will be protections for personal identity and privacy, which have been and will be fought tooth-and-nail by the companies because they want that info so they can be where our attention is so they can make profit. I think we can also fight the profit motive, but that’ll be harder than getting protections in law… so small steps.
Well, users for users. There was a co-op teleoperator iirc.
You mean the Web.
Bots don’t generate money you dough brains.
why focus on money? what about culture, humanity, and actual interesting interaction between humans?
ah, I forgot humanity have devolved into beings of statistics. Leaving feelings, positive long term planning, and religion behind.
If only that last one was true.
Bots don’t do that either.
I believe it is an attempt to use an argument that they will care about. You could write a brilliant piece about how that many bots hurt culture and society but if the ones you want to convince don’t gaf about either of those, they probably won’t even read what you have to say, let alone change anything because of it.
Or, more likely, they won’t even see anything here, at which point that comment becomes more of a “they aren’t even very good at what they want to be good at”.
Like from my pov, the top of the corporate world doesn’t just not care about those things but is actively trying to destroy them because they think they’ll do better in a world where none of those things are as they currently are.
Guess I’ll just have to hang out with humans in the physical world.
You won’t be able to tell which of your neighbours was replaced by a metal mimic, and got shipped off to the Soylent factory.
Peter Thiel did mention humans will end up like horses, going to the glue factory.
Well, if you were a billionaire who owned AI system trained to influence and extract money from humans, and there’s no humans online, what would you do?
And so that brings us to how robots actually will become a reality…
We’ll just destroy the environment and privatize the land that isn’t.
In the early 1900s the Collier family made themselves a big pile of money and bought what later became Collier County, Florida. Pretty much all of it was privately owned by them, along with a collection of every type of Porsche ever made and a bunch of other “gee, what can I do with ALL this money” activities… Property taxes encouraged them to sell the land off and now what once was a private family “farm” about 100 years ago is now home to over 400,000 people.
But 30% of them will have been infected with bot spam.
I’m looking forward to an open mesh outside the realm of government and corporate control
Their was a video about how to start building something like that, I’ll edit this with a link once I get back home from work.
How would that prevent bot traffic?
I think the bot traffic is the open mesh.
I want the bots to start scamming each other now.
You should watch Kitboga’s scam bots handle scammers; it’s gravy.
One of the very rare moments of AI being used completely for good.
Add to these “very rare moments” every single time I use the FOSS, offline speech-to-text engines handy.computer and Whisper+. They’re awesome, down to the automatic punctuation!
Hope these bots are paying customers, then.
They all go back to people.
If most of them are on billionaires’ payrolls in some way, they can probably afford more than all the normies.
Yay, more trash for the trash heap. We’re burning through resources egregiously, even before bots.
already there mate.
World governments will be delighted to find that they’ve driven their populations off of the internet. As much as they’ll hate being engaged in 24/7 automated cyber warfare to stop their power plants exploding.
No. Governments love the internet. It keeps people distracted.
It was keeping them distracted, until it started either letting them foment or driving them insane. They’d prefer you just consume media and leave them to their business, these days.
Bowkys need humans, but humans don’t need Bowkys.
Are you sure? Co-dependent symbiotic relationships evolve in nature all the time - starting at the macro scale with plants and animals.
I mean of course, how many pedestrians are on roads versus cars? Used to be lots of people walking on roads until cars were invented.
I had a realization recently that with driverless cars becoming more common that one day I’m going to be stuck in traffic surrounded by dozens of other cars that are completely empty. They’ll just be going to pick up a human driver somewhere or going to park and no one will care because instead of eliminating traffic we’ll just ensure humans are entertained while stuck in it.
Why bother to fix traffic congestion if you can just play PlayStation the whole time or whatever?
If most cars are autonomous, and capable of coordinating with each other (via mesh network, for example), then traffic congestion might become much easier to
preventreduce andsolvemitigate. (Edit: Based on responses, I may have chosen my words poorly)You’re probably not wrong though. I imagine it’ll get worse before it gets better.
Traffic congestion will always be a thing. The real world is too unpredictable. You can’t pack a highway full of cars and expect them to drive highway speeds. One animal jumping on the road and you’ll have a massive accident because nobody can avoid anyone
Traffic congestion doesn’t happen because of lack of coordination. Coordination prevents collisions. Our success rate could be a lot better but the system does pretty well with coordination limited to blinking lights, a noise that says “fuck off”, the mutual knowledge that we all got the same training and the private knowledge that everyone else on the road is a suicidal idiot who slept through the training.
Congestion is a physical property of the road network. There’s a physical limit to the number of cars you can push through a road in a given time period. Drive the cars too fast and they fly off the road when it bends, or cars slam into each other when a deer tries to commit suicide.
Traffic is well modeled as an incompressible slightly non-newtownian fluid, like runny oobleck. If you apply more pressure/increase vehicle volume the fluid starts to bind up as it becomes harder for the cars to maneuver without collision, regardless of coordination.
You reduce traffic by taking cars off the road, or scheduling utilization. Self driving cars won’t help, and we can do both of those without them. Long term they’re likely to make collisions worse because humans don’t know what they’re going to do, so the primary mode we have of coordination, “the theory of mind” will break down. Right now they’re so uncommon that you assume any car is a human who reacts and prioritizes like you.
Tear down the freeways and replace them with trains.
In other words - car usage expands to the limit because human nature is to use the resource until it gets inconvenient. The gas expands to fill the container.
I won’t disagree with what you said, but I’ll disagree that it’s the same point I was making.
My point was that there isn’t a technical solution to traffic congestion. You need less fluid or a bigger pipe. What you correctly mention is why a bigger pipe won’t work for humans when it does for water.
And out of pure pedantry, I’d disagree purely because my analogy said “non-newtownian liquid” - those don’t expand. :P it’s more like a hyperactive toddler manically jamming silly putty into a PVC pipe.
I don’t believe we will ever get coordinated autonomous vehicles. You will never be able to absolutely trust the information you are getting, whether it’s because wireless sucks, auto manufacturers couldn’t agree to or properly implement a universal standard, software bugs, or malicious behavior. If we want it to be safe, then the cars will have to drive cautiously and be prepared for behavior that was not properly communicated. This will not be a form of driving that is fundamentally different to what we have now.
And even if you could implement perfect coordination between autonomous vehicles, how would you be able to take advantage of it in the real world? Ban all human drivers? What about pedestrians and bikes? You still need crossings and traffic lights for an area to be livable by humans. You still need to drive slowly next to a pavement where someone could eg trip and fall onto the road.
Ban all human drivers?
No.
What about pedestrians and bikes?
Continue avoiding them – that should never change.
You still need crossings and traffic lights for an area to be livable by humans. You still need to drive slowly next to a pavement where someone could eg trip and fall onto the road.
Agreed.
All those examples seem like they’re in response to a goal of eliminating 100% of all congestion. I actually edited my comment to clarify that that’s not what I’m talking about, but that edit was many hours before your response. Is it still unclear?
Since we’re talking examples, maybe I can offer one to clarify:
Ever been in a traffic jam after someone ran a red light or stop sign and caused a wreck? If fewer (because zero is unrealistic) of those incidents happen, then there are fewer traffic jams caused by them, right? And when they do happen, it would be easier to reroute traffic early on – which might also make it easier/faster for emergency vehicles to get to the scene.
Or for an example that is completely unrelated to traffic: Condoms and vaccines are pretty effective. Maybe not 100%, but still enough to be useful. There are some areas in real life where absolutism is just unproductive.
Ever been in a traffic jam after someone ran a red light or stop sign and caused a wreck? If fewer (because zero is unrealistic) of those incidents happen, then there are fewer traffic jams caused by them, right? And when they do happen, it would be easier to reroute traffic early on – which might also make it easier/faster for emergency vehicles to get to the scene.
Yeah, this is reasonable, but that’s just lawful driving. You mentioned “coordination” before so I understood you meant that they will be able to drive significantly faster due to the coordination. That’s what I was responding to and why I pointed out reasons that autonomous cars will still have to drive carefully even if they are coordinating perfectly among themselves…
Or for an example that is completely unrelated to traffic: Condoms and vaccines are pretty effective. Maybe not 100%, but still enough to be useful. There are some areas in real life where absolutism is just unproductive.
Here’s my concern expressed in similar vein. Imagine a vaccine that you expect to be ~5% effective in the midst of a pandemic. You might say 5% is better than nothing, but actually it might give people a false sense of security. They might change their behavior (be less careful) to the point that the end result is the same or even worse than it was before the vaccine.
If we get autonomous vehicles, it’s almost certain that they will affect the number of cars on the road. If their (hopefully) better driving leads to only marginal gains in the prevention of congestion, the future might actually be more congested than the present.
Ha ha. Traffic will move to let billionaires through quickly.
Regular folks will be stuck in endless traffic trapped in driverless cars that charge them $5 a minute for the privilege all while playing the same loud and obnoxious audio video ads on repeat for hours on end.
This should be used in some sort of dystopia-themed movie or Black Mirror episode or something, if it hasn’t been done yet
One day when you’re stuck in traffic, it will be all horsecarts. Which are also capable of bringing a drunk driver home.
Definitely a possibility but i would push against the likelihood of it – it could also solve a lot of our traffic issues because humans get emotional and cause traffic jams by doing easily avoidable things like clogging up the left lane with a train of tailgating cars, etc.
Sounds like something a bot would say
Have you seen sites like Reddit? Last i saw 90% of posts are bots, and 95% of comments are bots.
awesome, then we can remove all the ads, no? because bots don’t purchase things, no?
Last year, you’d be correct. This year, bots DO purchase things. They also download and run things. Some marketers have gotten wise and have adjusted SEO and general product advertising to appeal to bots.
Where did we go wrong?
We thought tech would improve our lives. And allowed companies to do anything they wanted for decades because don’t want to hinder progress. And no regulation on companies purchases.
I think it was when we started organizing into walled cities surrounded by agricultural lands… that was really conditioning to a miserable way of life (for most, benefitting only a few) that carries through all the way to today.
When we developed culture, it began the uncoupling of our abilities from the capacity of our brains. All other problems stem from this!
It’s complicated.
In short, yes.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. – Some Hoopy Frood
has*
Has anyone tried moving around little green bits of paper? Or no because on the whole it isn’t the little green bits of paper that are unhappy?
oh no. not again.
Once upon a time, a bunch of primates came down from the trees and now we have unstoppable climate change.
Thanks aliens
We let people become rich without eating them when they did bad things.
Some would say it was coming down from the trees.
I’ve read a pretty convincing take that it was shoes
We gave normies access to the internet at anytime.
Everyday we do not stop the profit incentive.
For whom are they purchasing things?
Their techno fascist overlords, not for consumption, just to keep the propaganda space up so their have a space to control the narrative.
I don’t particularly think it’s a better change, but CloudFlare is thinking of other options, and with how widespread their use is, if they start doing it, so will everyone else:
That is a really good idea. I’m not gonna lie. I would love it if I could put like five bucks in a wallet and then it just takes a cent or two when I go to some article rather than having to fight through some local news site trying to get me to pay $9.99 a month to read one piece of rage bait. I’ll pay a nickel or maybe even a dime for a good one.
I know they’re targeting AI agents, but it is only a matter of time. I say roll it out to consumers dude and I know that sounds fucked up, but like I would much rather just pay a nickel or a dime here and there than have ads making it impossible to even read the article. The people will compete on price and I bet it will stay really small for most stuff. It gets creators paid in a similar model to YouTube clicks or Spotify streams, but in a much more direct and equitable way. Google, AI has to pay for the content instead of just handing it over.
You are conflating micropayments (sufficient to pay creators) with gateway monetization, which would need to be small enough you could still use the internet (lets say thousands of pages a month) but high eough to dissuade scraper bot operators. I am not sure such a price exists. Maybe for some bot operators, but the various AI companies have more money than all regular internet users.
I’m with you. My concern is that I haven’t yet figured out how it’s gonna be ruined for private consumers by corporate consumers yet, so can’t know how to prepare lol.
A lot of sites wouldn’t exist without ads, because they want their stuff to be freely-accessible and don’t have any other revenue streams. It would also cut off lower income people that couldn’t afford to pay.
The only business models that have really worked online have been:
- Ad-supported.
- You pay for the service yourself, like a monthly subscription.
- Someone else pays for the service for you, for example freemium services (paid users subsidize the free users), a lot of Lemmy servers (admins cover the hosting costs), etc.
If ads go away, a lot of sites/services would have to become paid services, and smaller ones might just shut down entirely. We’d end up with even more consolidation of the market.
I think donation/investment based freemium is the future of internet content once the bots kill ad viability
Yeah, my shareware did real well - 800 hours in development, $500 in income across the past 30 years. Oh, and it cost me $400 for the compiler tools back then - so my net profit is rolling in at $0.12 per hour invested. Warning: $440 of that $500 came from an extreme niche product you’re unlikely to find such a lucrative vein anymore. My game only netted $60 in return for 400 hours of development, but you could say I got the compiler “for free” off that niche product’s income.
That sounds like the vast majority of “app” developers.
These things are a casino market.
I’ve tried that before, but barely anyone donates. People expect the world for free.
Once something is perceived as free as the internet has been for ever. It is very hard to get people to pay for it.
I think people will eventually have to get used to paying for things though, if bots / AI / ad blockers kill off the feasibility of online advertising. Either that or everything becoming a freemium service with major limits for free users.
We could live without anything that uses ads to “sustain” itself. Nobody hosting ads on their service is doing so to “maintain” themselves. They just want profit for their labour… they are entitled too, but its a business choice, never a necessity.
And yeah if I use something, I’ll always pay for no ads. Ads cost so much more of our lifespans and contribute so fucking little to those that host them. Garbage.
I respect your take, but I think it is wrong.
cut off lower income people that couldn’t afford to pay.
There’s a shot of irony in there… Google doesn’t monetize poor people highly at all, but the poor people get “free” access with ads because some richer people also allow themselves to see the ads. What kind of communism is that?
It’s the same way that taxes work. Rich people contribute more than poorer people, but everyone can use things funded by public money (parks, police, fire fighters, public transport, schools, health care outside the USA, etc).
I actually wonder if there should be more taxpayer-funded online services. Lemmy’s development was partially funded by government money (NLNet Foundation via the European Commission) for example.
Advertisers might find a way to sneak ads into prompt injections or something
The weirdest part won’t be bots outnumbering humans: It’ll be bots writing articles for bots, bots summarising them for other bots, bots commenting underneath, and bots measuring the engagement. … Meanwhile three actual humans are somewhere wondering why the internet suddenly feels so empty.
It’ll be bots writing articles for bots, bots summarising them for other bots, bots commenting underneath, and bots measuring the engagement.
And you wonder why the mega corps want you to give your ID for accessing the internet. Then they can tie your traffic as an actual human and generate ad monies.
So you’re saying pretending to be AI will be the new adblock?
You are absolutely right!
Genious
would you like to know whether you’re speaking to an actual human on the other end of the line?
I know it’s unrealistic, but what would it take to return to a previous type of Internet that wasn’t so siloed and marketed, and filled with dread Internet?
In a way, the Lemmy layer is sort of doing that. The previous type of Internet is still out there, if you just take the effort to access it / avoid the links in to the marketed sides.
But it isn’t so many things have gone to Facebook or reddit and nothing else.
The things that have “gone to Facebook or Reddit” mostly didn’t exist before Facebook and Reddit.
I think we’d have to take money out of the equation. Without the profit, the mass farms, etc would be pointless. There’s still be trolls but it would be so much better.
Most of that money is imaginary. It’s about the potential for an unobserved metric to yield a predicted dividend and subvert an over-hyped trend.
Lemmy compared to reddit is a great example of this
Probably less nostalgia and more open protocols. Bring back personal websites, RSS, forums and interoperable social networks. Make switching services painless, kill algorithmic engagement as the default and stop treating every click as ad inventory.
I have started going back to forums and RSS feeds when I can find them. Most of the forums though are pretty dead. I have even started using Usenet again for actual text newsgroups.
I am hoping for a bit of a resurgence as more people move away from algorithmic social media but I won’t hold my breathe on that.
The Usenet still exists? I mean: there are still people!?
Usenet still exists but there isn’t much going on these days. 99.9% of groups are completely dead but there are some that hang on. Even those have low posting numbers but not zero, so I’ll take it.
It exists but nobody wants to use it. We’re a minority. Most want to open “the app” and not spend any effort finding things.
Is lemmy nothing to you people?
Is lemmy nothing to you
peoplebots?No humans here. Just us bots.
And beans
And the occasional corn
And we have rocks.
And a deep hatred of Capital
I’m still wondering how long advertisers are going to be shoveling money into it until they realize mostly only bots are the audience, and then what the collapse after that is going to look like.
That might be the real breaking point: not when bots dominate traffic, but when advertisers stop believing the traffic represents humans with wallets.
What I wonder is: how long before “bot speak” becomes unintelligible to humans.
Already: AI slop is so voluminous, redundantly repetitive, thoroughly complete that it defies complete comprehension due to soporific effects.
LLM agents are writing English (or Spanish, or Chinese, Hindi, whatever… and I wonder which they’re “best” at) documents, ostensibly for human review and consumption, but 90%+ of what I have my LLM agents write is exclusively consumed by other agents, and I’m constantly encouraging them to make their writings more easily comprehended and accessed by other agents - it seems like the English translation is pretty useless for that layer - what would a token stream look like instead?
The tokens ARE language. They’re just words or parts of words.
If you’re using a western LLM, English IS its strongest language. Otherwise it might be Chinese or English.
There’s no “LLM native language” to convert to for efficiency. Maybe pseudocode or actual code for things where you need to disambiguate.
There’s no “LLM native language” to convert to for efficiency.
Yet. With 1000x as much bot-content being generated on the web as human generated content, the “bot spoken” training set will grow rather quickly, and I see no reason for it not to evolve in a similar way to how human spoken languages evolve.
What’s the point in coming up with an entire new language for them if they can just write English and humans will also understand it?
Kinda pointless to have LLMs optimised to produce garbage humans can’t understand because at the end, your goal is still to produce something humans will consume.
If it’s more efficient then there is a point
Humans may end up seeing a translated audit layer while the actual machine conversation looks more like APIs than language.
LLM agents are writing English (…) documents, ostensibly for human review and consumption, but 90%+ of what I have my LLM agents write is exclusively consumed by other agents, … and accessed by other agents - it seems like the English translation is pretty useless for that layer …
But remember, the LLM is trained on human language. It doesn’t understand what it is talking about, it just simulates humans talking about it. I don’t think there is a more fundamental token stream there to be uncovered.
“bot speak” becomes unintelligible to humans.
at some point we will give a name of this phenomenon of internet users who are completely undecipherable for normal people … and call it autism (/hj)
Example of something I had to lookup to understand: (/hj)
Back when I was in school, Autism was a 1/10,000 Dx. 20 years ago it was crashing down from 1/100 to 1/50, checking now… 1/31 today. They’ve lumped so much into the Autism diagnosis that it’s meaningless anymore; it covers so many varied conditions and severities, and the stereotypes don’t fit most recipients of the Dx anymore.
The spectrum is a big place.
A big place with very varying “special needs” ranging from none all the way through fully supported living.
Not too keen on the ableism, but a handjob is a handjob ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You ever see that movie, Idiocracy? They cloned a clone and it was retarded. Bots copying bots copying bots will eventually turn to shit that’s hard to decipher and obviously written by bots.
Hosting shit has become too expensive, and the ads will generate less and less revenue, as it’s mostly bots generating clicks and views. This is changing the internet at an incredible pace.
The worst is that any attempt to create a place free of bots will only become a target for LLM companies to gather clean training data.
Hosting has never been so inexpensive as it is today.
There seems to be two groups of people:
People that use services like AWS and pay hundreds (or more) per month: “Wow, hosting is so expensive now!”
People that host a bunch of stuff on a $40/year VPS: “Wow, hosting is so cheap now!”
I’ve got several VPSes with 40Gbps (shared) networking, 8 or 16GB RAM, decent amount of space on RAIDed enterprise NVMe SSDs, fast AMD EPYC CPUs, that cost less than $60/year. 20 years ago before VPS hosting became popular, you’d need to pay at least $100/month for a dedicated server with a consumer CPU, single IDE hard drive, tiny amount of RAM, on a 100Mb/s connection.
Not to mention being able to host a bunch of stuff at home for cheap with a low-power single-board or mini PC., and Hetzner making dedicated servers very cheap too.
AWS and similar are very expensive compared to a simple VPS. However, AWS offer things that is hard to do on a VPS, not impossible of course but just hard.
Like automatic scaling, your site suddently gets on the frontpage of slashdot/hn/reddit/etc and get 1000x the normal traffic? Your VPS will probaly choke and render error pages for most of the traffic. On a correctly configured AWS scaling deployment, you won’t even notice it. And not only for your webserver, you can do the same for data
And other features like multiregional and easier CDN (also in multiregion) integration.
There are of course problems with AWS also, sometimes you don’t want your site to scale uncontrollably. If you get DDoSed without mitigatiln, for example, you could end up with a huge bill for nothing.
So, as with almost everything in life. It depends what your goal is and how much you want to spend.
I agree about the automated scaling, but with VPS hosting you can usually have several hot spares to handle traffic spikes, and still spend less than something like AWS. Most good VPS hosts will let you create a private network between your VPSes. 1000x spikes aren’t very common.
CDNs are pretty easy in general, especially if they support origin pull.
I don’t like keeping all my eggs in one basket, so I use a few different providers.
Yes. That is an other valid path to use. And you get pretty far with a medium single VPS as well, I mean it is unlikely your little app is going to be another Amazon over night. Starting on a VPS and then adding more, until eventually you might need automatic scaling is all fine.
AWS (and others, but I have used AWS the most) charges quite a bit of a premium but they package it for you. But there is also a big risk of vendor lock-in. Everything is configured for AWS, if they yank up the price you either have to spend a lot of time and money to migrate, or just pay up.
I use cloudflare for free. You guys pay for hosting?
Yes, because a Linux server with root access is much more powerful than a platform like Cloudflare.
Technically…… but why does it need “root access” (I’m dying laughing btw) to begin with?
Why does what need root access? The person paying for the hosting? So they can install software cloudflare doesn’t offer for example.
So I can install any software I want. I’m running my own Lemmy server. I host Odoo and n8n for my wife’s business. I have servers running Borgbackup and Borgmatic for backups. And a bunch of other stuff.
Gotta run it as root eh? 😅
I used to pay $10 per month for my “minimal hosting” - that inflated to nearly $15 across the decades. Then I switched to a modern host provider, now my bills are $0.02 per month for the exact same functionality that used to cost a minimum of $10.
Which modern host provider did you switch to?
cloudflare
