Propane isn't exactly good for you either, and it'd obviously flammable. Freon caused ozone layer depletion. There is no perfect refrigerant, but CO2 seems pretty safe.
The complexity of training depends heavily on your goals. If your goal is to improve startup time, it's actually pretty simple.
If your goal is peak performance across the board and you can't wait for runtime optimizations to kick in, you're going to have a harder time. But in many of the things I've worked on, startup time has been a bigger issue than JIT->peak.
Constantly. It's made me stop using Google entirely because I can't run a single search without hitting reCAPTCHA. It's becoming problematic because some services I pay for, such as Bandcamp, also end up pestering me with boatloads of reCAPTCHAs. I enjoy Bandcamp, but I'm going to have to axe it if it keeps up.
I am a volunteer coach in a rec soccer league for 6th graders. Bluetooth jamming could literally kill one of my diabetic (type 1) players during a game because of this scenario.
Clearly you don’t have a family member who uses CGM’s. They are extremely sensitive to RF disruptions, and often fail for mind bogglingly dumb reasons.
2s on / 2s off would completely disable all of their functionality until the interference was gone. And possibly much longer - they are finicky.
Bluetooth operates in an unlicensed band. If any medical device relies on any unlicensed band for any life-critical thing that is horrible design.
I would absolutely support consequences to any device manufacturer if a death is caused by a jamming of unlicensed frequencies. (In my opinion, medical devices should be able to keep you alive in any jamming scenario if feasible. But using licensed bands is just bare minimum.)
Additional paperwork reduces the likelihood (in actual, observable practice) that unintentional interferers exist to impact your critical-to-life application.
Furthermore, by moving your critical-to-life application away from common frequencies of interest, you avoid being collateral damage to jammers targeting unrelated applications.
So they are sensitive to RF but for some reason all the RF around you, from the power lines in the walls, the WIFI, the towers, they are immune to those?
This is such a first world problem. The speakers the post refers to are probably in a third world country where no medical equipment uses Bluetooth so jamming it poses no danger.
The reason why they don't use Bluetooth is because, they don't exist at all. People either die first before receiving the device, or the condition that requires it is rare in that part of the world
i’m delighted to report that it’s actually possible for people to talk about a second, related topic in a comment section without invalidating the problems of the main post being commented on
Who said a GPS jammer is okay? They are highly illegal in the US and the FCC will hand out large fines when they find one. GPS jammers are cheap though and so it is unlikely the FCC will catch the majority of users.
Though most GPS jamming is by countries at war. Russia has a large GPS jamming operation around Ukraine, and this often affects GPS in other parts of Europe as well. I have no information, but I would be surprised if Iran wasn't also jamming GPS (off and on depending on the current state of their war). You can safely assume every military in the world has some GPS jammers that they have plans to use if it makes sense to them.
> Who said a GPS jammer is okay? They are highly illegal in the US and the FCC will hand out large fines when they find one. GPS jammers are cheap though and so it is unlikely the FCC will catch the majority of users.
FCC will hand out fines if they can find the owners. Reading through the comments here about the hardware size and capabilities nowadays for pretty much off-the-shelf solutions, it is not a far fetched thought that an adversary can plant thousands of jammers in dense urban environments and then turn them on whenever they want to. Imagine what a blanket jamming can do in NYC airspace.
I think that quite often it has more to do with making sure the missiles and drones can't easily hit their targets. Not that this is an excuse for jackasses doing it just for shits and giggles. Fuck those people.
Calling NAT the original sin is a serious exaggeration. Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) is a truly evil concept that restricts the freedoms of the CGNATed users. But regular NAT is fine as long as you can control it. "No one wanting to bother with port forwarding" is largely a matter of shitty UX on the home gateway side and laziness on the side of the operator. Same with UPnP.
If anything, NAT has saved millions of wildly insecure devices running unpatched old Windows versions from getting pwned the second they connect to the open internet.
Yeah NAT is still "every household gets a public IP address". This is a perfectly good foundation for an open Internet. You can still host servers in your home. I did this a lot as a kid and learned a ton from it. It's maybe not super elegant but it works.
Going to a model of "you don't get a public IP address, all traffic must go through servers other people host for you" is what finally kills the open Internet. It's okay enough for cell phones where it's a hack to work around TCP/IP's lack of roaming support, but it should be illegal to deploy as residential Internet.
I don't think that you can draw the line between NAT and CGNAT. The fact that single NAT works as well as it does is an argument for why it is ok to double NAT with CGNAT.
The conceit behind NAT is that 99% of traffic over the router will be client-server and the last 1% can get away with separately negotiating with the router to get inbound traffic.
For example my ISP Xfinity by default will put your router in CGNAT space (and ipv6) but if you request port forwarding from a mobile app the upstream router will assign you a ipv4 address and it all works. NAT is considered fine because adding roadblocks to server hosting is a acceptable tradeoff.
The reason they i think they can be so flexible is that they likey have a ipv6 backbone to route to all the customers and ipv4 is not used for routing but as a extra service layered on top with packing the 48 bits of ipv4 and port inside a ipv6 address via MAP-T
> "No one wanting to bother with port forwarding" is largely a matter of shitty UX on the home gateway side and laziness on the side of the operator. Same with UPnP.
If you try to use those port forwarding hacks, you force every single piece of software to deal with the fact that the IP address it sees for itself is not the IP address its peer sees for it. And you force every single protocol design to allow for that possibility. Add in UPNP, and now you have to implement a whole extra (badly designed) protocol in parallel with the actual application.
It's not trivial to even discover the address your peer is seeing; even now there's a huge diversity of nasty unreliable hacks for doing it.
HTTP isn't the world. In fact, HTTP becoming "the world" was another part of the problem.
>If anything, NAT has saved millions of wildly insecure devices running unpatched old Windows versions from getting pwned the second they connect to the open internet.
I don't think NAT being a janky ad hoc firewall does anyone a service. It shields the devices enough to keep the developers oblivious about security, but not enough to stop them from connecting to arbitrary hosts. This perpetuates the humongous botnet ecosystem.
NAT didn't save us from insecure networking. It gave insecure networking an excuse that was just good enough to satisfy the masses.
This is worse for everyone in so many ways:
1. Forwarding ports suddenly makes you insecure, because you already were.
2. You have to fuck with your router config to even do that, and risk breaking something else along the way. Nobody should have to bother, because port forwarding shouldn't exist in the first place.
3. Many ISPs make it difficult or impossible to configure your firewall, let alone reserve a static public IP.
4. It's an eternal problem that isolates itself from any true solution. Any actually good UPnP implementation would just be stuck behind your NAT and firewall.
The entire premise "as long as you can control it" is the core issue, and the fundamental reason why NAT is the original sin. Without NAT, there wouldn't be anything to get control of.
NAT only serves as the janky inbound default deny because IPv4 doesn't have the address space. There are very few things NAT solves in a world without address exhaustion; the only one I can think of off hand is a janky method of forcing return routing in enterprise environments where symmetric rooting is needed.
In an alternate universe (or a current one with IPv6) every home router would have a default deny inbound security policy, and home admins could punch holes as needed the way they do today with port forwarding.
> If anything, NAT has saved millions of wildly insecure devices running unpatched old Windows versions from getting pwned the second they connect to the open internet.
Its definitely the opposite. People started ignoring security because its "natted" anyways, even though NAT was never supposed to be security-critical. Thats what firewalls are for.
People (by which I mean average computer users) didn't "start ignoring security", they never bothered to unignore it in the first place. Early Windows editions didn't even ship with a firewall at all, people were rawdogging the internet out of the box without ever stopping to consider the consequences.
I remember in the Windows 95/98 days asking my friend for his IP address and then browsing through my windows explorer to his mum's fully shared windows C drive. She had her computer plugged directly into the modem and was using ICS to share the net to my friends computer.
I sent them a screenshot of her shared drive through ICQ, and not long after she bought a router.
... because people (by which I mean software vendors who should have known better) irresponsibly failed to create secure systems for those average users to use. A whole lot of which came to be justified by "it'll be behind a firewall" thinking.
Did you forget dialup was a thing? No one created anything for home users thinking it would be behind some firewall because as said Windows didn't ship with one, and because the dominant way of customers getting online was dialup, giving a public IP to every user.
Software was created with no security because no one demanded it because no one cared. Technologies that came later did not create that situation.
The typical NAT implementation ("PAT", single public IP, RFC-1918 network) gives you an implicit stateful firewall denying unsoliticed inbound traffic. Most people don't need anything else.
> If anything, NAT has saved millions of wildly insecure devices running unpatched old Windows versions from getting pwned the second they connect to the open internet.
You can have a stateful firewall that blocks non-established-connection packs and all your publicly addressable devices would not be reachable. NAT ≠ firewall (though they often glommed together on CPEs).
And NAT is also giving a false sense of security in some ways: "this device has an RFC 1918 address so is not reachable, and therefore safe". Yeah, except if another device already on the inside is / gets compromised. Perhaps if everything had a public address folks would be more circumspect.
> Generally, firewalls aren't going to save you from an internal compromise either.
Right, but it's easy to get in the mindset that because devices are on the "inside" network they are safer. This is the risk that NAT brings: RFC 1918 = safe(r).
If every device has a 200::/3 address, then even if there's a SPI firewall which prevents external connections, it may help to reduce this inside/outside thinking.
I think it's hard for us to imagine what we could have if not for NAT.
Just as an example, any device on your home network could have a web interface which you could access from anywhere using a web browser. All the smart light bulbs and things which need some stupid account on some service could be made so they're controlled by the user instead of some company.
I've set up things like this on my home network but it's a pain because I need to deal with port forwarding, and if I have more than one device I need to use a reverse proxy.
> If anything, NAT has saved millions of wildly insecure devices running unpatched old Windows versions from getting pwned the second they connect to the open internet.
I doubt it.
Very few devices do port NAT without also doing firewalling, since firewalling is simpler.
>If anything, NAT has saved millions of wildly insecure devices running unpatched old Windows versions from getting pwned the second they connect to the open internet.
This might not be a good thing. Perhaps if there had been no protection for those odious operating systems, they'd have died the horrible deaths they earned decades ago. We should only want to protect things we intend to keep, after all, and none of us wanted to keep that garbage.
All of the current OS choices are insecure by design. The all operate programs with the ambient authority of the user. While this was fine for the corporate world of AT&T in the 1970s, and the classroom in the 1980s, it's insane to use it in the era of ubiquitous persistent megabit Internet connectivity, and mobile code.
I know of zero systems that can survive exposure to the raw Internet, unpatched and without administrative oversight, with uptimes of years.
>I know of zero systems that can survive exposure to the raw Internet
Sure. And as long as nothing has to survive exposure to the raw Internet, no one will build anything that could survive it. Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. You seem to think that the protection is the reaction to dangerous operating systems, when it's the cause.
Which is part of why Tanenbaum was right, and Linus Torvalds is dead wrong.[1]
Eventually, we'll all be running Operating Systems designed on microkernels, which have been written by actual software engineers, and proven correct with formal methods.
Until then, we're going to suffer through endless series of increasingly severe cybersecurity incidents.
Computer Security is a solved problem, has been since the mid 1980s, secure proven microkernels, with almost all code in user space, capabilities based security, etc. have been just waiting to move into mainstream use.
Eventually? I've seen more than forty years of OSes that "we're all running". Given past trends, your "eventually" we'll be after we're all dead.
There isn't such a thing as you describe. There isn't a trend toward such a thing as you describe. What there is, is Windows 11, and Linux, and OSX. And when people complain that Windows 11 stinks, they're mostly complaining about the UI and the ads, not about the security or the lack of formal methods or the lack of a microkernel.
The closest there is to what you're describing is SELinux. It's still a monolithic kernel. (Though I think it did use formal methods, but I'm not sure of that.) The only microkernel candidate that I know of is the Hurd, and it isn't what we're all running, and shows no sign of becoming so.
How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?
Iceland is already in the EEA and Schengen. The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK.
The main downside and likely what steered the vote to no are conflicts with Iceland's fishing industry x EU regulations and becoming more vulnerable to foreign ownership and fishing rights.
Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia.
My guess is most voters in Reykjavik have near zero exposure to fishing as an industry.
>Iceland's economy depended heavily on fishing, which still provides ~20% of export earnings and employs 7% of the workforce.[77][152] [...] Iceland's economic dependence on fishing is diminishing, from an export share of 90% in the 1960s to 20% in 2020.[153][152]
>[The fishing industry] provides 40% of export income and employs 7.0% of the workforce; therefore, the state of the economy remains sensitive to world prices for fish products.[
One benefit would have been that Iceland would have got to vote on EU Single Market legislation, which it currently has to incorporate into its laws without any say.
Iceland would also benefit from trade deals with non EU countries (currently it is excluded).
It also would have joined the Agricultural policy, which would have meant better access for its farm produce.
Realistically, how much sway would tiny Iceland really have on those regulations since most are covered by qualified majority voting? The ones they care about are precisely fishing, which is unsurprisingly a sticking point. Considering they literally had 3 Cod Wars with the UK, I don't think Iceland will blink first.
Adopting the Euro is the worst part of what joining the EU would entail. While it may have some convenience benefits, and is perhaps less inflationary, it removes one of the fundamentals of the what a government is there for: monetary sovereignty. You can no longer define your budgetary limits,m, you are always being pressured for austerity because the (mostly) Germans don't understand money, and so it is a constant struggle to get anything for the people done. What you get is a constant "management"-style government, barely scraping by..
> The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK.
Strictly speaking, Iceland could do this unilaterally, anyway; Kosovo and Montenegro have done so, and Denmark and a bunch of African countries peg their currency to the euro.
Maybe you are not familiar with the EEA. Iceland already has access to the European single market. Just like Norway, who doesn't seem motivated to join the EU, either.
It is unclear to me how changing from EEA to EU membership somehow protects Iceland (a founding NATO member) against being 'forced to limit their business dealings with Russia'. That is how it relates. Feel free to help me connect the dots.
It's in an inherently awkward place. National politicians will tend to represent popular EU policies as "look what we did" and unpopular as "look what THEY did". It's really very difficult for the EU to deal with this.
The referendum was done specifically in two parts - 1. do you want us to try to find a deal with the EU 2. We will thrash out any details, get the best deal we can with the EU and give you another vote.
Seems like Iceland didn't want to even waste the government's time looking into this... I quite like their government treated everyone like adults.
I listened to an interview with the Icelandic PM and this seems pretty much correct. She was pro EU but equally was very clear that there were other things the government could focus on instead.
Do you want us to burn a huge amount of time and effort on this. Or would you prefer us to focus on other problems?
I recently deleted all of my Reddit accounts. The website had been unusable on mobile for a good while, with the constant and ever-more-aggressive nagging about switching to the app. Old Reddit was the one thing that made the site still usable. And now that requires a login.
So fuck that. Bye Reddit. I'll miss some of the communities.
Same, the few communities that are worthwhile I still lurk through photon-reddit. It's a pity how the site went down, I only hope their stock value goes down in the same way.
It's been real annoying to no longer be able to visit reddit posts for search results as it has been the de-facto public forum where recommendations and solutions to issues get posted for a while now. Never going to login there again though and I think I will follow your example and have them delete my account.
reply