frezik @ frezik @midwest.social

Posts

5

Comments

5,366

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your post is still just speculation based on personal understanding. I can claim every word of it is wrong and be just as credible.

Are you going to post an actual study comparing the manufacturing costs? You made the claim first, so you get to do the work first.

I'll offer as many references as you did in your claims.

Takes me back to the early post-9/11 days where lots of random shit is terrorism. Not back to anyplace I wanted to be, but it does take me back.

I choose to believe every single word of it. The universe is more interesting if it's true.

Have you ever chained three Cisco 2600 routers together and then successfully ping'd clients on each end? Do you know what BGP is? OSPF? Do you know the difference between routing and routed protocols?

I know you don't, because people who do don't make the claims you're making.

No they fucking don't, that's not what routers do. You don't know what you're talking about.

And don't fucking tell me NAT is for security, either.

Least surprising headline of the year.

Skype won't be supporting anything at all very soon.

What happened with Vonage is something that could happen with any kind of instant messaging, including things like Discord.

With everything directly addressable (not just static addresses, but directly addressable), an IM/VoIP service can simply connect to the recipient. No servers are necessary in between, only routers. That doesn't work with NAT (CG or otherwise), so what you have to do is create a server that everyone connects into, and then that forwards messages to the endpoint. This is:

• More expensive to operate
• Less reliable
• Slower
• A point for NSA eavesdropping (which almost certainly happened)

This is largely invisible to end users until free services get enshittified or something goes wrong.

Yes, it's only tangentially related to static addresses, but it's all part of the package. This is not the Internet we should have had.

And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT

Your router has NAT. That's the problem. CGNAT is another problem. My C&C: Generals issues did not have CGNAT.

Pirating Harry Potter stuff is now not only a moral thing to do, but almost a moral obligation.

. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .

Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.

. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .

But they do work better without NAT. That's somewhat separate from static addresses.

My old roommate and I had tons of problems back in the day when we tried to host an Internet game of C&C: Generals behind the same NAT. I couldn't connect to him. He couldn't connect to me. We could connect to each other but nobody outside could. It's a real problem that's only been "solved" because a lot of games have moved to publisher-hosted servers. Which has its own issues with longevity.

Or stretch out the twists in the individual wires. That will also cause signal issues.

IIRC, cat5 cables are rated for 50lbs of force on them. They'll technically hold a lot more than that, but you can't guarantee the twists will stay in spec.

Red power receptacles. Was this at a hospital?

You can get IPv6 addresses. What you can't get, in many cases, is a static IPv6 prefix assignment.

CGNAT is not fine. Its problems are simply hidden from most people. ISPs have to have more equipment that's less reliable, increases latency, and is potentially a bandwidth bottleneck.

The reason they have no use for a static address is because applications haven't evolved to work that way. Roll back the clock 30 years, do IPv6 seriously so that everyone has static assignments by the time the Y2k problem has come and gone, and you have a very different Internet.

In fact, many applications, like VoIP and game hosting, have to go through all sorts of hoops to work around NAT.

Did you know the Cybertruck was designed to mimic a Porsche? Specifically, this one.

It's almost certainly something that will get worked out on its own. There isn't enough volume to justify lithium battery recycling at this point. After a decade of EVs being mainstream, there will be.

That said, GP is correct that EVs are about saving the car industry, not about saving the environment. Getting better walking/biking/public transportation infrastructure is the way to go. Ebikes, in particular, open up biking transportation to a lot of people who hesitated before. The amount of lithium used in them is tiny compared to cars, and the market can likely be served by sodium-ion batts, anyway.

I thought it was widely accepted . . .

No. Not even close.

GDPR says you shouldn't get a single cookie until you click the consent button. Try this: clear all cookies for a web site that has one of these banners, refresh the page and let it finish loading, and then see how many cookies you have for it before you consent to any.

No, I'm trying to get people to think. If I laid out my full opinions on this subject (compilers and interpreters aren't that different anymore, even machine code often runs more like bytecode in many ways, "scripting" is a term that hides what's actually going on, etc.), then people get into endless debates. My questions are designed to pick apart assumptions.

Admittedly, people didn't appreciate when Socrates did this shit, either.

Hell, they'll probably put that on a resume, and someone will hire them.