What, no A/UX or Mach?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)
Hey, you should pick up some carrier-grade Cisco routers and switches, and run IOS to tie 'em all together!
397 karma · joined September 2, 2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)
Hey, you should pick up some carrier-grade Cisco routers and switches, and run IOS to tie 'em all together!
The reality is that each network interface has at least one Internet address, and these should usually all be different.
An ordinary computer at home could be plugged into Ethernet and active on WiFi at the same time. The Ethernet interface may have an IPv4 address and a set of IPv6 addresses, and belong to their home LAN. The WiFi adapter and interface may have a different IPv4 address, and belongs to the same network, or some other network. The latter is called "multi-homing".
If you visit a site that reveals your "public" IP address(es), you may find that your public, routable IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses differ from the ones actually assigned to your interfaces.
In order to be compliant with TCP/IP standards, your device always needs to respond on a "loopback" address in 127.0.0.0/8, and typically this is assigned to a "loopback" interface.
A network router does not identify with a singular IP address, but could answer to dozens, when many interface cards are installed. Linux will gladly add "alias" IPv4 addresses to most interface devices, and you'll see SLAAC or DHCPv6 working when there's a link-local and perhaps multiple routable IPv6 addresses on each interface.
The GP says that their work computer has a [public] routable IP address. But the same computer could have another interface, or even the same interface has additional addresses assigned to it, making it a member of that private 10.0.0.0/8 intranet. This detail may or may not be relevant to the services they're connecting to, in terms of authorization or presentation. It may be relevant to the network operators, but not to the end-user.
So as a rule of thumb: your device needs at least one IP address to connect to the Internet, but that address is associated with an interface rather than your device itself, and in a functional system, there are multiple addresses being used for different purposes, or held in reserve, and multiple interfaces that grant the device membership on at least one network.
Of course it was only later that cookies and scripting and low-trust networks were introduced.
The WWW was conceived as more of a "desktop publishing" metaphor, where pages could be formatted and multimedia presentations could be made and served to the public. It was later that the browser was harnessed as a cross-platform application delivery front-end.
Also, many sites do carefully try to guard against "linking out" or letting the user escape their walled gardens without a warning or disclaimer. As much as they may rely on third-party analytics and ad servers, most web masters want the users to remain on their site, interacting with the same site, without following an external link that would end their engagement or web session.
Creation of a shortcut on Windows is not necessarily innocuous. It was a common first vector to drop malware as users were accustomed to installing software that did the same thing. A Windows shortcut can hide an arbitrary pathname, arbitrary command-line arguments, a custom icon, and more; these can be modified at any time.
So whether it was a mistake for UAC to be overzealous or obstructionist, or Microsoft was already being mocked for poor security, perhaps they weren’t wrong to raise awareness about such maneuvers.
I've surely conflated Earhart with Lindbergh, who was known for his solo marathon flights, and somehow absorbed decades' worth of pop-culture "Amelia Earhart" legends that left Captain Noonan as a remarkably obscure footnote in history.
And even more interesting still were the accounts that a disastrous landing in Hawaii carried a crew of four, and her penultimate attempt had a crew of three, with an aborted takeoff that severely damaged her Electra, and the third man had refused/declined to continue as the odds were increasingly not in their favor.
Well, who can agree on this? Local network, private network, intranet, Tailscale and VPN, Tor? IPv6 ULA, NAT/CGNAT, SOCKS, transparent proxy? What resources are "local" to me and what resources are "remote"?
This is quite a thorny and sometimes philosophical question. Web developers are working at the OSI Layer 6-7 / TCP/IP Application Layer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Comparison_with_TCP/...
Now even cookies and things like CSRF were trying to differentiate "servers" and "origins" and "resources" along the lines of the DNS hierarchy. But this has been fraught with complication, because DNS was not intended to delineate such things, and can't do so cleanly 100% of the time.
Now these proposals are trying to reach even lower in the OSI model - Layer 3, Layer 2. If you're asking "what is on my LAN" or "what is a private network", that is not something that HTTPS or web services are supposed to know. Are you going to ask them to delve into your routing table or test the network interfaces? HTTPS was never supposed to know about your netmask or your next-hop router.
So this is only one reason that there is no elegant solution for the problem. And it has been foundational to the way the web was designed: "given a uniform locator, find this resource wherever it may be, whenever I request it." That was a simpler proposition when the Web was used to publish interesting and encyclopedic information, rather than deliver applications and access sensitive systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic)
In fact, the lede paragraph of the Wikipedia article notes its retention by The New Yorker manual of style, despite being considered archaic.
Direct cited source: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-...
Whenever I "delete" a social media account, or "Trash" anything on a cloud storage provider, I repeat the mantra, "revoking access for myself!" which may be sung to the tune of "Evergreen".
Reddit may presume that the user holds the copyright and is legally able to grant a license, but it isn't necessarily so. There are users who set their avatar to "Baby Yoda", or posted 3 paragraphs they transcribed from their print edition of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, or just copied photos from their classmate's phone camera app without asking.
If you look through Flickr you will find many photos and collections with fake licenses. All those sites you Google that advertise "Free Public Domain Clip Art / Stock Photos" maintain plausible deniability. Look through any wiki on Fandom.com and see whether the film studios go after their most ardent fans who upload dozens of stills and screenshots to promote The Twilight Saga or something.
In 1990 I wrote a configuration file to assist me in using GNU Emacs. I wrote and debugged it from scratch, in my free time, on my family's dime. I decided that it had a broad enough application to be useful to other Emacs users, so I submitted it to the developers. They included the file in a subsequent release of Emacs 18, and it was there for a decade or more.
My submission had been quite informal and, while I'd included some self-attribution at the top of the file, there was no explicit LICENSE or GPL or assignment of copyright. By submitting it to the developers of GNU Emacs for distribution, I had implicitly licensed it via the same GPL.
However, this informality was not enough to pass an audit later. By ca. 2010, they combed through the sources and removed the file I had submitted, along with others, because they were unable to track down the explicit licensing or copyright assignments that were seen as necessary by then.
Browers[sic] can't feasibly stop web pages from talking to private (local) IP addresses (2019)
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/BrowsersAndLoca...
They’ll be unable to effectively patrol or prevent generative updates to the project, and for all intensive porpoises, humans will be unwilling to step foot into disputes, and AI will have free reign to redefine all human knowledge.
And yes, "As a work of the US Government" it is dedicated to the Public Domain by law.
But just to complicate the matter, “Castellano” is also used in South America.
The word "European" was chosen to avoid the clash of "Portuguese Portuguese" ("português português") as opposed to Brazilian Portuguese.
But that's subjective. Even my grandmother in the early-80s said differently. Everyone's computer-time and our smartphones and our digital clocks we've plugged into the wall, all have switched over to Wednesday at 00:00:00 midnight.
If you go to a bar they will tell you, "last call is at two in the morning." If someone heard a noise they say "I woke up at three in the morning to look around." My mother called them "the wee hours".
Sure, colloquially, 01:20 is very late on Tuesday night, because the Sun hasn't returned to announce Wednesday, and the cock hasn't crowed. So that is another way of looking at it. Time is analog, the orbits of Earth and Moon are analog, and we're cramming them into digital approximations and binary categories.
But you've misidentified the problem. The problem is that different humans interpret differently. The interpretation is influenced by culture and language. My scientific culture says that 01:20 is on Wednesday morning, and that is in agreement with my dearly departed grandmother, my smartphone, my calendars on Google and Outlook, and honestly there is no outlier in my life, except you, and Crunchyroll(?) who would insist that "01:20 is actually 25:20 on Tuesday night", and that writing it in this way would "help" solve a problem, because we're just explaining how damned confusing that is to rational Americans or users of either 12- or 24-hour clocks.
So "the problem" in my book is that a hypothetical human looked at our hypothetical "01:20 Wednesday" as rendered by a hypothetical computer, and that human wasn't thinking like a computer, or an American, or that human was Japanese, and that human erred with their interpretation of time notation. Now I don't have any idea of what time notation "01:20 Wednesday" would prompt a hypothetical trip to the airport 24 hours late, so it is not like this human was applying a different but correct interpretation to this problem.
Why don't we write "very early on Wednesday morning" or "before sunrise on Wednesday" or "just after midnight" (the latter is literally what "a.m." means...) and it won't look like another typo. Because if you write "1:20am on Wednesday is Tuesday night" then I'm going to call out a contradiction.
Computers can actually help with this, because if I've made a hypothetical calendar entry for my flight and I email the .ICS file to you, then the timezone and day-of-week is baked-in to that, so if everyone's settings are correct, bypass human interpretations. Many airlines have a way to email your itinerary directly to your friends. Just use the tools.
It also does not help for entry into a programmatic form or database field. That sort of notation is only good for output to a human who knows this custom.
Sometimes even more egregious are the custom settings on classic video games. You can walk up to a Ms. Pac-Man or a Galaga and find all the action is sped up 1.5x, or just the ghosts/bombs/adversaries are always overtaking you. I think that a few decades of evolution in the ROMs either gave way to crooked ones that could be set to "impossible" levels, or the settings were always there and waiting to be discovered.
So a well-tuned pinball machine was a joy and a pleasure. I played mostly from 1992-1998. I did not enter any tournaments or play competitively. But I had a habit of entering the initials of my current "crush" when I achieved high scores. Sometimes, in a lonely place, I could aim to fill a top 10 board and attribute it all to the object of my affections. Good times!