unethical_ban

I mean, that's my point, cars shouldn't be connected. Rip out the modems. Rip out the black boxes.

You can't fathom some kind of automobile designed without network connectivity?

It'd be lovely if we could competently say that out loud rather than pretending it's about consumer privacy.

I'm not naive. They could require cars be functional with zero network connectivity.

They don't need to ban a nation's cars, they need to set safety standards.

But they want cars to be trackable by their own systems, so they don't want the public getting reacquainted with privacy protection.

I don't think that's a concern sufficient to ban import. Why not impose requirements for spare parts manufacturing and modularity?

Again, if they wanted to work in the interest of affordability and electric vehicle promotion, they would. They're being protectionist for Ford and GM.

There is no logical reason to ban vehicles except protectionism and protection of manufacturing capability domestically. There is no security risk from Chinese EVs that requires a full ban.

A cultural issue that many organizations face. Same reason most large companies have an infosec department that runs separately from IT.

BBC America shows a lot of Trek, if I recall correctly. I'm shocked that Paramount doesn't have it for VOD on their streaming service. Are they suppressing it, think they can make more money selling the media, or are they afraid it could cannibalize their other Trek ventures?

It's definitely a slight learning curve (a few days at most for basic understanding and troubleshooting). I can't speak to complexities like routing protocol configurations.

But goodness, the infinite-subnets-of-same-size glitch is so amazing. I see companies all the time that struggle to subnet their sprawling enterprise. Different subnet sizes everywhere, fragmented networks, subnet migrations to try to defragment, so on.

Many orgs are so short-staffed and staffed with mediocre talent that they spend their days fighting fires and keeping their flawed current practices operating just well enough to keep the lights on and not cause outages or security breaches. Things like "optimizations" and "redesigns" of the IP stack, even in 2026, would be a 5-10 year journey without a dollar sign benefit attached to it. So they limp along until the transition is seamless and necessary or monetarily desireable.

Drown the government like a baby in a bathtub, eh?

Yep. IPv6 should be thought of as 2^64 subnets, each with "enough space for everyone" within each subnet.

From my readings and limited experience, it's two things.

First, IPv6 in the 90s and 00s is different from IPv6 today. Various extensions and standards have been added that make IPv6 administration easier than it was in the early days. I want to say RDNSS is one of them. Background: one of v6's early selling points was SLAAC, where DHCP could be disposed of and endpoints would auto-configure their own IPs in accordance with the network announced by a router. Problem is, without DHCP, there was no way to get DNS, and DHCPv6 wasn't widely deployed/it was discouraged... so how does one get a DNS server automatically? RDNSS came around to announce DNS servers from the router directly.

TLDR: Early IPv6 sucked more than today.

Second, it's simply a chicken-and-egg problem, particularly at the consumer network level. User-friendly IPv6 router configurations are still rare for home routers, and ISPs have simply dragged their feet. At this point, if we're going to have government mandating all manner of things for consumer products, we should be mandating IPv6 support on home routers and that ISPs delegate at least a /60 to each customer.

I do not excel at this, but that's why it's important to continue normalizing activities that protect our freedoms, even if they seem inconvenient on their face. Shops should accept cash, people should use cash, people should expect and demand privacy. Laws and judicial interpretations are often based on the public's expectation of certain services and rights.

Season 1 had a great premise with some missed expectations around the significance of some plot elements. Season 2 was exceedingly "meh", with an exception for the end of the last episode which made me tear up. Season 3 was pure memberberries, and if you accept that then it is fun.

It's meme-y, but if you know, you know. Whenever I see or even watch the line, I instantly hear the Picard Song.

So logical flaws can't be patched without hardware replacement? Software isn't fundamentally unsafe. We're in a gap era where the capability to discover bugs is greater than the response time and pre-emptive hardening of software written without AI assistance. This gap will eventually get smaller.

Patents aside, h265 from my reading is almost universally better than h264. My understanding which could be wrong is that for a given quality h265 will always be smaller, and particularly for >1080p it's recommended. Hardware support has been around since at least the Shield days (2019) so that shouldn't be an issue. Only use h264 if you are needing to hw-decode on really old hardware.

AV1 is the future/present: Fully open standard, better than h265. Only downside is hardware support: You need hardware made in the last few years.

It would be extraordinarily simple to remedy this: Require by law the technical ability to physically disable all remote communication to and from a vehicle, and prohibit any remote communication requirement from the core functions of a vehicle.

An operator should be able to use their vehicle with zero remote software use. No smartphone requirement, no onboard radio requirement. This may mean that certain features like FSD or navigation tools are disabled for safety reasons, but there are plenty of useful safety features that do not require live updates.

From a privacy and utility perspective, this is a no-brainer. Second, as a software security layperson, I think this would largely eliminate any "sleeper cyber sabotage" security concerns that are cited for prohibiting Chinese vehicles.

---

Given how obvious this seems to me, I'm confident that we're really banning Chinese EVs for economic reasons.

Most of those are states with low seat counts. But to quote me from a sentence above, "gerrymandering is bipartisan".

Rucho v Common Cause, a case that would have rightfully declared partisan gerrymandering an unconstitutional depravation of voting rights, was shot down by a Conservative court. Democrats campaign on ending gerrymandering, Republicans do not. Trump demanded the recent escalation in gerrymandering by explicitly calling for political re-drawings to give Republicans more seats, and Republican governors complied. The calls to de-escalate and ban the practice federally have (almost) entirely come from Democrats.

They're right. Of the listed grievances, only gerrymandering is a bipartisan issue, and even then only Conservatives have fought to preserve and expand its use.

I don't think Linux is any worse than Windows at this point. Distros the burden of supporting every machine ever made while Windows gets pre-installed support by vendors. However, consumer Windows on my relative's HP laptop is absolutely horrendous experience. Online accounts, popups from crapware, constant ads in all the built-in apps.

Meanwhile my Windows install can't see either of the wifi devices, even when I try to install drivers from the manufacturer. CachyOS autodetects everything and it just works.

So, not pretending, I have fewer issues on multiple devices right now with CachyOS and Fedora than I do with Windows. If my relative had any capacity for learning new hotkeys, I'd already be wiping his machines and putting Kubuntu LTS on them.

It seems to be a non-invasive assistant to augment the human-created, human-curated recipes they give.

I think NYT Cooking recipes are sometimes... not that great anyway, I think some of their cooking techniques are sub-par.

As for this quote from a mad user: “Anyone using AI for cooking has no sense of taste and no desire to work out the intricacies of cooking and baking”

What a horrible take! I use AI to remind me of certain simple tips I haven't written down, to give substitution advice, the exact kind of stuff NYT app says it's going to do. I learned to cook through Youtube chefs, some book recipes, and I cook for the fun of it and to eat good food. How judgemental to say that someone using AI to learn isn't interested in food!

My account of well over a year and 11k karma was banned by admins presumably for an admin-deleted comment where I said "Hi kids, buy our product!" as a Steve-Buschemi-meme reference, and was flagged as spam. To your point they also have their Comment Quality Score (CQS) which lowers you automatically if you use Proton email aliases, lowers you if you use VPN to access the site, among other things.

Made several polite appeals and requests for clarification, all which went unanswered.

I used to be a lot more enthusiastic about decentralized protocols. I don't know how to solve the AI problem though. I think the Internet as we knew it for assumed-human interaction is dead, and the surest way to believe you're interacting with humans now is through existing trusts, such as accounts older than AI and highly-moderated forums, and to charge for access.

As part of an imminent, concerted, collective effort with peers during civil unrest? Sure. Most people aren't ready to Luigi themselves to jail for life as a statement.

It is a lack of imagination to think that the current iteration of immigration enforcement and visa policy is the only alternative to open borders.

But they aren't prioritizing dangers. That is false. They have quotas set by a white supremacist. And I think talking about the Trump administration's direction of ICE and ICE itself is a distinction without a difference.

We might be talking past each other. You're talking purely legal interpretation, I'm talking society and philosophy.

My point is that government cannot be trusted to have this kind of power because it will at some point be turned against the population when dissent threatens the people holding power; it is inevitable. The least we should do is make laws strictly controlling access and purpose of access to such tools for criminal investigations, but I don't think that's enough to stop abuse and civil oppression.

Of the half-dozen or so attempts at immigration reform in the past 25 years, every one of them has been blocked by Republicans.

IMO, Republicans like the status quo because the business class enjoys exploiting workers they can threaten with deportation, and they enjoy it as a rallying cry for their voting base.

I agree with your second paragraph, but disagree with the first.

Society and its laws have been built around the central idea of selective enforcement. We have all manor of laws on the books that are created with the assumption that they cannot or will not be enforced perfectly.

The spy powers of our governments have always been assumed to be limited - that if they choose to invasively track a person, it would take limited human resources and that would naturally limit their capacity (in theory) to those who the government truly deems a concern.

Omnipresent surveillance that can record and analyze and correlate every citizen's movements and behavior at all times is inherently totalitarian and anti-freedom. It is a power the government should not be allowed to have, period.