Yup, or that bad view of Broadcom is because of the price hikes.
I had a meeting with IT where I was worried they were finally coming after my proxmox box they "didn't know about". Turns out they saw their vmware bill and suddenly had questions.
>every time I push I discover they have no clue how networks work
Listen here, if there is a networking technology or feature that I wasn't forced learn when I half-assed a SOHO router config in 2005, then it shouldn't exist at all.
Yup. People learn parts of v4 through osmosis because it's the default. Then when networking topics come up, it's easier to keep going with stuff that looks familiar rather than un-learning assumptions. Why bother with the weird other thing that's not even mandatory?
Because IPv4 is logical and makes sense. First thing which IPv6 came up with? No NATs everything will have a public address. It turned out that this was hare brained idea so let's just cover it up with firewall. However misconfigured firewall means that everything is open... IPv6 has been designed by people who were unable to think further than what is going to be tomorrow for a lunch.
IPv4 came out in 1982 and was designed for every device to have a unique public address. Protocols like FTP were designed to literally pass an IP address to connect directly to.
As addresses started running out, the NAT RFC was published in 1994 and described NAT as a "short-term solution". NAT was never meant to be an integral part of IPv4. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1631
NAT broke a ton of things which required more and more hacks piled on, making it more complex to build services on top if it (e.g., a server in the middle to proxy all the traffic needed between peers is a 100% requirement, with all the maintenance and scaling headaches that come with it).
So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with. It was stupid on IPv4 and it remain stupid on IPv6, yet we already have experience from IPv4 that it was stupid.
> So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with.
If an address is not public how can you start an connection from it, or end a connection at it? A web server needs a public address if you want to have people reach it. And you, at some point, also have to have a public address if you want to connect to pubic services: either on your end-host, at your CPE/router's WAN interface, or on an interface of your ISP's CG-NAT box.
But having a public address on your end-host also allows for much more functionality than if you were stuck behind CPE-NAT or CG-NAT. Now, you don't have to use this functionality—just like how I didn't when my printer gets an publicly addressable (but not publicly reachable) IPv6 address—but it opens up various possibilities.
Well, actually it will. In fact, even correctly configured NAT won't stop connections into your network.
On top of that, it lulls you into a false sense of security, so you confidently think it's protecting you even when it isn't. At least not having NAT makes the actual state of your network clearer.
Port forwarding requires a port forward rule that matches the inbound connection. If there's no such rule... NAT won't stop the connection, it will just ignore it.
If no other aspect of your setup blocks the connection, it'll be successful. If you were deploying NAT because you thought it would function as a firewall then this part is probably not intentional.
Isn't that the first thing that IPv4 came up with as well? One publicly routable address per device that wants to access the Internet (or the network of universities or military installations or whichever network you were on pre-Internet).
You see and IPv6 was not able to learn from the failure - people does not want to have all computers in one network, same like people does not want to live in one skyscraper.
Reader's Digest: What pleases you more, applause or laughter?
Tina Fey: Laughter. You can prompt applause with a sign. My friend, SNL writer Seth Meyers, coined the term clapter, which is when you do a political joke and people go, "Woo-hoo." It means they sort of approve but didn't really like it that much. You hear a lot of that on [whispers] The Daily Show.
Obviously we can't see that people aren't genuinely falling out of their seats laughing when that headline get rolled out again. There's no way argue that someone doesn't earnestly think bad (or tired) jokes make effective satire.
I don't think a whinge is a joke just because it has the shape of a joke and a point I like. Overall, I agree with you. But you'll never convince anybody.
> "Make users pass a test on basic concepts like the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions before they can tweet."
If twitter ever became what he says he wants, he'd quit using it within a month. He already has the option to close twitter and seek out experts' writing. Why is he choosing to bask in the emotions generated by people being wrong on twitter?
It's like listening to a friend complain about twitter being "full of" content that you rarely/never see on your feed. Nah, that's their algorithm and they just told you exactly who they are.
Maybe the volume of AI content will finally get people to advocate for media awareness training, rather than the current strat of trying to scold platforms into only showing the manipulative content they side with.
> Maybe the volume of AI content will finally get people to advocate for media awareness training, rather than the current strat of trying to scold platforms into only showing the manipulative content they side with.
Not gonna happen. The best outcome is there's an organic impulse to recoil in horror to the flood of AI content, which overrides normal moral considerations and causes mobs to go burn down some datacenters (or support politicians who'd do something equally brash).
What's not going to happen is the majority gets brain-rotted for a decade and then somehow reforms because they had a couple hours of "media awareness training."
Or we end up in a pseudo fahrenheit 451/brave new world/1984 hybrid where people become complacent in allowing this rot to continue or even actively encourage its spread because the prole no longer sees the value in stopping it and our masters see the value in taking it away
>The identity crisis observation is the most accurate thing
It's also a nasty tool used to dismiss criticism by tearing people down in work-friendly language.
Software does employ a lot turds that it shouldn't. We been knowing this. Impossible to ignore following the 2010s push to expand the hiring pool. Newcomers didn't even pretend to try or care.
Convenient that we're suddenly calling them out now. At the same time there's a need to indiscriminately invalidate professional-informed opinions.
> It is telling about what we prioritize in our society.
No it's not.
It's a measure of what people want accomplished, are least interested in doing themselves, and feel capable of reviewing enough to delegate to a known lair.
I had a meeting with IT where I was worried they were finally coming after my proxmox box they "didn't know about". Turns out they saw their vmware bill and suddenly had questions.
reply