←back to thread

Show HN: I built a(nother) house optimized for LAN parties

(lanparty.house)
1071 points kentonv | 3 comments | 16 Nov 24 15:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

I wasn't quite sure if this qualified as "Show HN" given you can't really download it and try it out. However, dang said[0]:

> If it's hardware or something that's not so easy to try out over the internet, find a different way to show how it actually works—a video, for example, or a detailed post with photos.

Hopefully I did that?

Additionally, I've put code and a detailed guide for the netboot computer management setup on GitHub:

https://github.com/kentonv/lanparty

Anyway, if this shouldn't have been Show HN, I apologize!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336638

Show context
laidoffamazon ◴[16 Nov 24 21:22 UTC] No.42159467[source]▶
This is neat, but as a $NET shareholder and someone with another ~$1m in net worth that can't afford to buy a house for at least another 6 years this makes me think we should significantly increase taxation.
replies(8): >>42159573 #>>42159641 #>>42159944 #>>42160006 #>>42160133 #>>42162628 #>>42162813 #>>42164380 #
IAmGraydon ◴[16 Nov 24 22:36 UTC] No.42160006[source]▶
You have $1M of net worth that isn’t a house (and is therefore likely to be liquid) and you can’t afford to buy a house? Where and how much?
replies(1): >>42160160 #
laidoffamazon ◴[16 Nov 24 22:51 UTC] No.42160160[source]▶
I spend about $3.2k a month for a studio apartment in an HCOL area. I don’t even own a car.
replies(3): >>42160283 #>>42160544 #>>42160628 #
bigstrat2003 ◴[16 Nov 24 23:03 UTC] No.42160283[source]▶
You need to move, yesterday. Yes, moving sucks. No, ideally you wouldn't have to. But at the end of the day you are just plain shooting yourself in the foot if you continue to live in a place that absurdly expensive.

Like dude, you could buy an awesome house in just about any other part of the country if you truly have $1m in liquid wealth. You have options to own a house, you just have to act on them.

replies(2): >>42161750 #>>42163253 #
47282847 ◴[17 Nov 24 03:23 UTC] No.42161750[source]▶
What’s this fixation on house ownership? It doesn’t make sense rationally. Stock markets always perform better, easily beating ownership and the hassle and associated risks of managing property.
replies(3): >>42162149 #>>42162195 #>>42176692 #
1. mikem170 ◴[17 Nov 24 05:29 UTC] No.42162195{5}[source]▶
One factor: It's an investment that you can get for 20% down, or less. You can't borrow that much to gamble in the stock market. All is well as long as the value of the house doesn't go down.

People like the idea of making money. They are used to real estate always increasing in value.

We'll see what happens as boomer demand ages out.

replies(2): >>42163990 #>>42167664 #
2. kasey_junk ◴[17 Nov 24 13:02 UTC] No.42163990[source]▶
And the loan is heavily subsidized by the federal government (and frequently by other governments as well).

US policy is to make real estate a fundamental part of Americans wealth. It’s worked! Since the policy started we’ve gone from hovering in the 40% homeownership rate to hovering in the mid 60s.

It’s also made housing expensive and homogeneous.

3. 47282847 ◴[17 Nov 24 21:55 UTC] No.42167664[source]▶
Even with subsidies taken into account, the ROI is still higher with stocks and the risks a lot higher with properties. 401k is also subsidized. See studies.

I understand that there may be arguments individually for the decision and emotional safety is one, but it should be based on fact, not myth and misunderstanding.