MerManMaid
>the term was value neutral.
By the late 1930s the academic community had largely moved on from eugenics, the catholic church denounced it 1930 with their Casti Connubii, the Eugenics Office Records closing in 1935 and finally Laughlin retiring in 1939. (The leading Eugenicist)In 1930s being a Eugenics was viewed much like homeopathy is viewed today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_connubii - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
>Until a certain Austrian painter decided to practice eugenics in a uniquely negative way,
Eugenics in the united states saw the rise of the "Moron Laws" and mass sterilization of marginalized communities in the US. In fact, Nazi Germany's Eugenics policies were largely inspired by US Eugenic legislation and actively promoted by US Eugenicist. (Particularly California) Heck mass sterilization programs in the US didn't even die with WW2 continuing into mid 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics - https://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_stateso...
I'm troubled by this thread because the vibe I'm getting is Eugenics was only bad because the science wasn't there yet and the Nazi's did it, this time will be different. No, the aspect which made eugenics dangerous were inherently political and every bit as relevant today than they were a hundred years ago. (Who decides which traits should be "edited" out? What traits should be "edited" in? What policies should be legislated? Who is primarily impacted by these policies? How much agency do the people impacted by these policy have in the situation?)
Ne supra crepidam? "not beyond the shoe"
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
Not saying he won't try to circumvent it (definitely wouldn't be shocked) but if anything would trigger meaningful civil conflict, this would be it. (in my opinion)
You'd be surprised... PCP (Port Control Protocol) implemented by large vendors such as Cisco and Apple are able to punch through a firewall for up to 24 hours in a single session.
https://github.com/Self-Hosting-Group/wiki/wiki/Port-Mapping...
Whether it be the new deal or non-isolationist policy, his direction led us out of the depression.
Yes the root cause might stem from management but good engineering would not have the doors flying off... thus bad engineering. Regardless of everything else, engineers are responsible for their designs at the end of the day. (Yes when management only approves cheap unsafe designs)
Otherwise you are "just following orders" which is not a viable leg to stand on.
So roughly 6x the amount of students.
>is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer.
At the time Errol & Maye were divorcing they had 2 homes, 5 cars, a yacht, and a plane. Most people don't own homes at the moment, let alone a private plane.
>What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley.
Having generational wealth is by far the largest contributing factor. Otherwise he wouldn't of been able to move across the globe to get a better education, focus on college and network, ect. Also not sure what Canada and Silicon Valley have to do in common? It is not like every Canadian ends up working in the Valley. That said, it does seem like most wealthy people over the past 40 years has in various capacities ;)
I'm not going to argue he isn't a successful CEO, (The results speak for themself) But I don't need to refute his business acumen to think he is an awful CEO who actively abuses, manipulates, and lies to his employees whenever it suites him. You can be a very successful yet bad CEO, these aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
They have no control over crappy WiFi NIC cards that delay connections or how Apple displays captive portals.
Either way he is set for life, truly being one of the most wealthy humans to have ever exist... literally.
This has lead to many context specific problems as many of the re-written protocols don't work as well not to mention the added complexities of protocols designed specifically with NAT in mind. As another network engineer I can attest to the problems this has caused. Pretty much everything from overlay VPN networks, VoIP solutions, security and ACLS, and just our day to day maintenance tasks are complicated by NAT. It has gotten so out of hand that many of us have dedicated NAT routers just handling NAT translation.
It's so weird to me that so many people in our industry spout scalability but then laugh off IPv6... How the heck do you guys plan to communicate to the ever increasing amount of smart devices? IPv4 literally ran out a space years ago...
What you're suggesting here wouldn't work, wrapping all the addressing information inside HTTP which relies on IP for delivery does not work. It would be the equivalent of sealing all the addressing information for a letter you'd like to send inside the envelope.
Now perhaps you're not working on anything someone might want to exploit, but PLCs are often found in critical infrastructure as well as high-end manufacturing facilities, which make them attractive targets for malicious actors. Whether because they're attempting to exploit critical infrastructure or infect a poorly secured device that high value end-points (such as engineering laptops) might eventually connect to directly.
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... - Water Infra
https://claroty.com/team82/research/evil-plc-attack-using-a-...
>>The only flaw is too small address space.
>>>With current IPv6, you have to throw up half of the stuff you know about IPv4 for, imo, no valid reason.
ARP, DHCP, NAT, Lack of built in encryption are all huge problems that had to be addressed.
- ARP: incredibly inefficient, prime vector for abuse by malicious actors via arp poisoning
- DHCP: Man in the middle attacks, need I say more?
- NAT: Literally breaks the whole concept of IP addressing, incredibly inefficient as it requires manipulating packets mid-stream, literally designed as a temporary band aid to smooth our transition away from IPv4
- Built in encryption: You say this makes this more complicated but I believe it is the opposite, better security is built into the foundation rather than having to build it into every protocol on top of it. (ssh instead of telnet, SFTP instead of FTP, HTTPs instead of HTTP, ect) The issue I'm having with your argument is that you're saying that "you're fine with a replacement IP protocol which ditches the bad" and then go on to deride IPv6 for doing exactly what you're asking for. (keeping it as close to IPv4 as possible while ditching the biggest sources of technical debt)
>And I will tell it again to be clear. Im not fan of some IPv4+ contraption ideas like lets extend IPv4 address space and try to keep it IPv4. Thats DUMB.
But you literally did suggest exactly this when you said:
>What IPng team should do, is just take IPv4, extended it to 64bit, call it IPv6 and we are done.
Did I somehow misinterpret this?
>Make new protocol, improve things that were bad in IPv4 (are they any?) and try to make it one way interop to IPv4 (IPv6 -> IPv4) and we are done.
IPv6 does provide a way to do exactly this, it's called NAT64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64?useskin=vector
>Remember that you are building protocol for entire planet. It have to be relativly simple and easy to implement. Any extras should be layer up.
Again, this really makes me think you don't work in networking. When you abstract security from the underlining protocols you essentially leave a gaping hole in your security. The only surefire way to communicate securely is to bake encryption into the protocol itself. (and even then it is hit or miss)
This is why we moved from HTTPv2 to HTTPv3 This is why we stopped wrapping telnet into IPsec Tunnels and opted for SSH, this is why we stopped wrapping HTTPv2 in TLS tunnels and baked it into HTTPv3, and so on.
I don't want to spend a lot of time on IoT but as a network engineer I can say that they exist whether you like them or not and make up a large portion of traffic so we can't just not consider them when talking about how network protocols ought to be designed.
This is literally what they did, except they made it 128 bit rather than 64.
The thing you're missing is that literally every IPv4 protocol breaks the second you change bit count. Before you change the 32-bit header you need to (a) redefine bit for bit every IP protocol so it can be understood by each IP capable device (b) somehow send a full-proof update to every IPv4 device in the world redefining how they ought to interpret IPv4 headers.
When a person invokes the Nazi's while discussing subjects that aren't nearly as heavy (emotionally speaking) the horrors of everything Nazi related, they're leave themselves open to being perceived as hyperbolic. No matter how strongly one might feel about open source, the subject matter is just simply on a different emotional level than all the horror which is Nazi. (and therefore, ought not to used as a comparison)
And again just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of being hyperbolic personally, I just want to elaborate on why some people groan when they see Nazi's beings inserted into topics which they have nothing to do with.
Agreed but surely we could come up with a form of competition more fair than something which heavily favors the wealthy and/or familial alumni.
There are so many measurable long-term benefits to higher education both for the individual as well as the state that it's truly insane (to me any at least) with how unaccessible we've let it become.
Again while I absolutely agree with your point, he was in fact, not a king for very long.
Is the spirit of this service corrupt? Absolutely. Does it undercut Big Tech's checks and balances? %100. Is it morally lacking? Personally I think so. Is it illegal though... ehhhh? It might be shocking but not every term found on a FAANG's term and services agreement is legally binding.
Services like these are inevitable so long as humans are corrupt but typically only pop into public consensus when the institution has failed so spectacularly that the average consumer has completely lost faith in them to adequately address their problem. While I'm not condoning corruption, clearly the Big Tech companies have failed in providing adequate solutions to this problem and I feel our time is better spent examining the negligence of these institutions which caused the problem rather than the malicious service looking to exploit said negligence.
To me, these services are more indicative of "Big Tech" failing to create effective appeal processes to meet their consumer's demand... While I'm sure there isn't a lot of money in it, it'd be great for Big Tech to examine how they could improve on this front.
History is written by the literate. (i.e. the rich for most of human history)
In this case, most information about Alexander the Great comes from four distinct sources, the most famous being Arrian of Nicomedia who famously used Ptolemy I Soter as their primary source.
Ptolemy at the time he wrote his testimony was already a king and only had benefit of grandizing his own contributions not his old King. His account was famed for how straightforward it was and seemed only to confirm Alexander's exceptional leadership in battle.
*As an aside, one of my favorite things I get to do at work is when onboarding new Jr. Net Engineers is getting them take our spectrum analyzer into our office kitchen and instructing them to watch the spectrum turn bright red while I make a bag of popcorn.
Anyhow to get to your question, the best answer would be to get some distance between your microwave and set-up you're using with the headset. Otherwise if that isn't possible, then you'll want some headphones that does use 2.4ghz. Replacing the microwave will likely not fix the problem since they all use 2.4ghz band for cooking and at least I've never seen one shielded well enough that it didn't impact others while in use.
I mean in theory, you're absolutely right but so rarely does it ever actually shake out that way. It seems like corporations continue to make the same mistakes while simultaneously being held less and less accountable.
Literally hundreds of people have died due to Boeing's negligence recently and the prevailing opinion seems to be that no one is ultimately going to be held accountable. (at least not meaningfully)
Ideals are great and all but if it results in zero accountability when hundreds of people die, maybe its time for us to re-evaluate.
Obviously that isn't to say it wasn't a tragic event, just that in terms works that were forever lost has been vastly overstated in public consciousness.
One thing that we definitely lost forever was all the notations made by contemporary scholars as the Library was a mecca of intellectual thought for hundreds of year... Truely heartbreaking to think about about all the information we could of gleaned about their worldview from the annotations they made on those works.
If that is the only way you can find out about what is happening to the government responsible for your safety and wellbeing or alerts about impending disasters... absolutely!
Phones are literally essential computing devices in modern society as it is the primary source of important information whether it be about family, government, or national emergencies for a large swath of the population.
I honestly can't think of a single example of a monopoly, cartel, or industry leading company which has ever crumbled due to everyone collectively deciding not to do business with them. (without some sort of government regulation or technological advancement facilitating the change)