Or their hills that spew smoke 24/7 (because they’re on fire).

One thing to note is that the campaign to make him into a ‘broken’, ‘damaged’ individual is well underway in the media. There’s nothing positive about being well-adjusted to a harmful system, and being broken by a harmful system is not a personal failing.

Is he going to be a perfectly polite, mild-mannered person in court? Maybe not. But don’t let yourself be tricked into the narrative that this discredits his reasoning, or into thinking his actions are the result of some personal failing rather than a reasonable reaction to a harmful system.

He’s really out here raising the bar each day…

“Oh, you work in tech? Have you shot any CEOs recently?”

“No…”

Thank you, this is super informative!

So first off, I think it’s safe to assume that the article is not about going and removing IPv4 on your company’s corporate networks for a month, so I’ve been speaking in regards to home internet service.

NAT is not a firewall, but in normal use by the average home internet user it is a means to prevent computers outside of their network from reaching computers inside the network without ports being forwarded on the router, or the internal machine initiating the connection. If you do not have a firewall on the devices, and they are not behind a NAT gateway/router, then they are by default exposing ports. There’s no inherent guarantee that a router has a firewall configured properly, or has it enabled.

I’ve never seen NAT in combination with IPv6 and I’ve seen plenty of deployments at our customers.

I’m interested in how this works. In a normal IPv4 scenario for home internet users, you are assigned a single IP for your router by your ISP, and internal addressing is usually handled by router-resident DHCP automatically. In the deployments you’re seeing, are ISPs handing out /120 blocks to each router? Does that require the ISP to have access to alter your home router, or do customers configure the DHCP themselves (which seems unlikely to scale)?

I admittedly did not read the original Mastodon post from nixCraft about the purpose of No NAT November, but surely it’s not just about moving to IPv6? You can (and usually would) still do NATing with IPv6. You don’t want every device to be internet-exposed, but still want them to be able to access the internet (and who wants to configure internet-defensive firewall rules on all their internal home hosts)?

There’s a reason that FD00::/7 exists.

You can essentially achieve this with some routers with a “DMZ” network segment/ device, so all incoming requests to your external IP get forwarded to it automatically. You don’t even need to disable NAT if you set it up well.

Better than a bow warning.

Something the article doesn’t clarify is whether this is meant to only to apply to kids in Australia. Normally that would be obvious, except that Australia already has tried to demand social media companies remove content even for non-Australian users on the basis that Australians could bypass geo blocking with VPNs. If age checks are location/ IP based, they could make the same (bad) argument.

Had us in the first half, not gonna lie…

I actually love my foldable Razr. I never could afford one as a kid, and the smaller form-factor is actually really nice.

Basically yes, a chatbot and the ability to do simple actions (agents). So in their fantasy universe, instead of clicking on Firefox and typing a query in the search bar, you’d ask the desktop to search for something, and it would do those steps.

That’s all just an excuse though, to explain why they need to collect all your local data. :P

Probably none. Now I’ll name one that is large and influential, and isn’t trying to combat the problem: X

No, bots are not real people, so them masquerading as real people holding an opinion is, by definition, misinformation.

This isn’t misinformation.

Right, the other example is. The whole point is the difference between propaganda (the bots) and legitimate political sentiment (all real people). Given that Musk is actively choosing not to combat misinformation bots on his platform, it’s fair to step in.

When these crappy "AI"s finally do displace my job, I will become a fireman, but in the Fahrenheit 451 sense, and it’ll be servers instead of books.

I think it’s important for groups of people to be able to choose to ban propaganda and misinformation, because propaganda is not simply information being imparted, it’s an entire ecosystem of deceptive methods to disseminate information and to alter your perception without you realizing.

If it were calling for the EU banning X solely because they don’t like Musk’s shitty personal opinions, I’d agree with you, but they cite the disinformation, misinformation, and outright propaganda that the platform is being used to spread, and I think that’s perfectly valid.

Take 2 scenarios:

5 million actual people telling you that ‘x’ political view is common and popular, causing you to doubt, or at least temper your own personal beliefs.

500 thousand actual people, plus 4.5 million bot accounts telling you that ‘x’ political view is common and popular, causing you to doubt, or at least temper your own personal beliefs.

In reality, you don’t even need the bot accounts to outnumber the real users if you control the algorithms that determine what people see, which is exactly the situation that X is in right now.

tl;dr This isn’t about banning the viewpoints themselves, it’s about banning a platform that deceptively alters visibility of viewpoints to manipulate people.

Banning things you don’t like is not a solution

Tell that to Musk; X bans TONS of people over their viewpoints.

• Getting over a pretty debilitating flu that lasted 4-ish days
• End of this week I take a 2-day train ride, which I’m looking forward to SO MUCH, so I’ll have senioritis at work all week
• Finished up a couple different hands-on projects that all went amazingly
  • dremeled a non-safety-cut P365X-Macro frame for thumb and magazine safeties all by eye
  • finished assembling a rPi NAS for my dad’s place that has spotty internet, so he can have a local ‘streaming’ service with movies and tv shows

Por que no los dos?

Reading further, it’s a pretty compelling argument that sanctions are the root cause, and this kind of instability and pressure is exactly what sanctions are meant to bring about.

Sadly true.