I essentially just did this as a total beginner and it worked. (I have built my own gaming PCs and took basic/Pascal programming in HS, but have no real network experience)

I had some old enterprise mini PCs, added a second NIC to one and put Opnscence and pihole VMs on it. I ended up doing PCI Passthrough for the new NIC for the Opnscence VM so the WAN/modem is isolated from the host. Bit a simple bridge works. The original management LAN NIC is just in bridge mode (so the host and VMs can share it).

I’m probably too new to be offering advice, so I’ll just pile on the encouragement. You can do it!

You’re seeing an oligopoly in a prisoner’s dilemma. I’ll try to better explain what I thought I said at the end of my last post:

The suit alleges that because these three firms control ~95% of the market and face huge entry barriers ($20B+ for a new fab), they successfully suppress the natural incentive to compete. Instead of one firm expanding to capture the DDR4 market (which would lower prices), they allegedly coordinated to all exit that market simultaneously, creating an artificial scarcity that independent self-interest would rarely sustain.

When this prisoner’s dilemma operates “correctly”, every firm fears being the “sucker” who cuts production while others don’t. This fear often forces them to compete (produce more) rather than collude, keeping prices lower than they would be under a true monopoly.

The lawsuit argues that the market should naturally suffer from this instability, protecting consumers. Collusion removes this natural check.

One could probably spend the next 4 years just playing a backlog of 50-75% discounted games made over the last 5 years on an “average” PC made in the last 2 years.

But… New thing shiny.

The distinction lies in competitive risk. Under independent action, if one firm cuts supply to raise prices, rivals are incentivized to increase production to steal market share, which naturally caps price hikes. Under collusion, firms agree to cut supply simultaneously, eliminating this competitive check. This creates artificial scarcity, allowing all participants to charge monopoly prices without fear of being undercut. The lawsuit argues this is especially damaging in the DRAM market, where $15–20 billion entry barriers prevent new competitors from entering to discipline prices.

I’m so happy all the RAM can sit in storage depreciating, waiting for a data center that is not built and lacks power infrastructure.

The best I can do is some soma to help you in this Brave New World.

Empathy, right at you man. (You deleted, so I’ll skip the details).

You must be a time traveler from 2032 when AI probably still won’t be a thing. (Unless we change the definition of the term).

How are those unbuilt data centers with no power infrastructure going to use all this 2026 hardware that will be obsolete by the time they come online again?

It represents Kafka’s allegory for existential alienation, dehumanization, and the absurdity of modern life.