Dark Arc
Hiker, software engineer (primarily C++, Java, and Python), Minecraft modder, hunter (of the Hunt Showdown variety), biker, adoptive Akronite, and general doer of assorted things.
- 0 Posts
- 570 Comments
8·7 days agoFor me it’s a mix of what you said and how they treat their employees/where they’re making the product.
I spend extra time trying to find higher priced, higher quality, more fairly manufactured products.
What companies use Kaspersky?
Isn’t this mostly a consumer level issue?
Not as complicated, but the parts are bigger. Few would want an even bigger smart watch just to get repairability.
2·10 days agoCan’t comment on the DOCSIS, I don’t know enough about it to not be making stuff up.
Regarding WiFi though… The simple answer is if you’re not having trouble accessing the WiFi in the places you use the WiFi and you’re getting the full speed that you’re paying for, there’s not a ton of a reason to upgrade the router.
The exception to this is that most routers only get a few years of security updates like most phones… That can potentially leave your network more vulnerable as the router might not properly block unsolicited traffic from making it to your devices. There’s a solid argument that you should just have your devices secured via their own firewalls though.
The Google routers are nice for the average Joe because they just kind of work and keep themselves updated (and Google tends to keep the hardware they sell under the Nest name receiving security updates a VERY long time compared to the competition). Netgear has been my go to for years but their update mechanism is … fairly manual in my experience.
I’ve since moved to having a pfSense box for the firewall and routing side of things and using my old negate router in access point mode (I’m much less concerned about this setup).
I’ll add that I don’t recommend WiFi for gaming… And that most people have more download speed than they really “need.” Files really haven’t gone up in size much (sure games have) but evening else… meh (?). Video streaming is more popular but unless you’ve got a lot of people in your home or you stream at 4k, it’s really not going to be that noticable between 30Mbps and 1Gbps. So like, by all means if you don’t want to spend money, don’t… you’re probably fine.
Honestly it just feels like so much stuff is car hostile at this point… Like I went to leave a store the other day and I couldn’t clearly see oncoming traffic because the shrubs were too high and right next to the road.
I wish I could say that was a really uncommon experience.
Honestly a huge portion of the problem is asshole drivers that just don’t turn off their brights and their fog lights or that tailgate the vehicle right in front of them while their headlights are mirror level.
I’ve seen brand new trucks with LEDs that were so easy on my eyes then I’ve seen the exact same model of truck via rearview mirror only after I passed it because the lights were beyond blinding.
They need to enforce maximum luminosity laws with an iron first; it’s ridiculous that people get away with this stuff.
1·13 days agoThe memes that I remember being all over Reddit about “where did you get that code … I stole it [from stack overflow]” honestly terrified, and continue to, terrify me.
Calling RCS an industry standard is a bit… Questionable. Still, I’m happy to see Apple finally implementing it so there’s a good cross vendor texting implementation.
I wonder how this scales to large voice rooms.
IIRC telegram does as well
So most dorms don’t want you using your own routers because a bunch of student routers causes A LOT of inference.
You should probably reach out not to the dorm folks but the university networking folks as they’re the ones that will ultimately make the decision on whether or not to turn things off/disconnect you.
A cheap networking switch would probably be okay by them to get some more wired connections in your dorm room (routers aren’t really a great way to do that).
As a secondary concern, using a router will cause a double NAT for all your connected devices (universities don’t operate in the way ISPs do). That could cause some weird networking shenanigans, particularly for anything peer-to-peer like online games.
Sure, there’s a cost to breaking things up, all multiprocessing and multithreading comes at a cost. That said, in my evaluation, single for “unity builds” are garbage; sometimes a few files are used to get some multiprocessing back (… as the GitHub you mentioned references).
They’re mostly a way to just minimize the amount of translation units so that you don’t have the “I changed a central header that all my files include and now I need to rebuild the world” (with a world that includes many many small translation units) problem (this is arguably worse on Windows because process spawning is more expensive).
Unity builds as a whole are very very niche and you’re almost always better off doing a more targeted analysis of where your build (or often more importantly, incremental build) is expensive and making appropriate changes. Note that large C++ projects like llvm, chromium, etc do NOT use unity builds (almost certainly, because they are not more efficient in any sense).
I’m not even sure how they got started, presumably they were mostly a way to get LTO without LTO. They’re absolutely awful for incremental builds.
Slow compared to what exactly…?
The worst part about headers is needing to reprocess the whole header from scratch … but precompiled headers largely solve that (or just using smaller more targeted header files).
Even in those cases there’s something to be said for the extreme parallelism in a C++ build. You give some of that up with modules for better code organization and in some cases it does help build times, but I’ve heard in others it hurts build times (a fair bit of that might just be inexperience with the feature/best practices and immature implementations, but alas).
There’s no precompiler in C++. There’s a preprocessor but that’s something entirely different. It’s also not a slow portion of the compile process typically.
C++ is getting to the point where modules might work well enough to do something useful with them, but they remove the need for #include preprocessor directives to share code.
A fact I struggle with on an almost daily basis…
True, though presumably users in those places would be stuck with the “less trustworthy” instances (and ideally, would be able to get their local laws changed to make themselves more trust worthy).
It’s definitely not perfectly moral… but little in the world is and maybe it’s sufficient pragmatic.
Yeah, BlueSky has this concept of user moderation lists. It’s effectively like subscribing to a adblock filter. There might be some things blocked by patterns (e.g., you could have one that blocks anything that involves spiders) and there might be others that block specific accounts (e.g., you could have one that blocks users that are known to cause problems, are prone to vulgar language, etc).
I think the problem with credibility scores in general though, is it’s sort of like a “social score” from black mirror. Real people can get caught in the net of “you look like a bot” and similarly different algorithms could be designed to game the system by gaming the metrics to look like they’re not a bot (possibly even more so than some of the real people).
This is kind of what lead me down the route of bringing things back into the physical world. Like, once you have things going back through the normal systems … you arguably do lose some level of anonymity but you also gain back some guarantees of humanity.
It doesn’t need to be the level of “you’ve got a government ID and you’re verified to be exactly you with no other accounts” … just “hey, some number of people in the real world, that are subject to the respective nation’s laws, had to have come into contact with a real piece of mail.”
Maybe that just turns into the world’s slowest UDP network in existence. However, I think it has a real chance of making it easier to detect real people (i.e., folks that have a small number of overlapping addresses). The virtual mailbox the other person gave has 3,000 addresses… if you assume 5 people per mailing address is normal that’s 15,000 bots total before things start getting fishy if you’ve evenly distributed all of those addresses. If you’ve got 3,000 accounts at the same address, that’s very fishy. Addresses also change a lot less frequently than IP addresses, so a physical address ban is a much more strict deterrent.
Hm… I’m not sure if this is enough to defeat the strategy.
It looks like even with that service, you have to sign up for Form 1583.
Even if they’re willing in incur the cost, there’s a real paper trail pointing back to a real person or organization. In other words, the bot operator can be identified.
As you note, this is yet another additional cost. So, you’d have say … $2-3 for the card + an address for the account. If you require every unique address to have no more than 1 account … that’s $13 per bot plus a paper trail to set everything up.
That certainly wouldn’t stop every bot out there … but the chances of a large scale bot farms operating seem like they would be significantly deterred, no?
This headline seems way weaker than necessary BBC.
Actually, I guess that’s not the headline, it’s just the post title.