azernik

Not my original joke:

The United States is a command economy, where the only command is "no".

I tried from Israel and it did work. Might be EU only that's blocked?

The key word is gradual. Population decline in Japan may be faster than is economically manageable, depending on whose projections you read.

We all have to accept that people will look at perfectly innocuous, clear, well-written prose and assume that AI wrote it.

That is an article saying that mesh networking frameworks exist. It does not support the GP claim of smart TVs creating mesh networks across different owners.

Did you read the article, or just the headline?

Being much closer to the receiver and tied into terrestrial power grids, ground-based beacons can transmit at higher powers than GNSS signals and be received at much higher powers.

Received GNSS power is on the order of -130dBm (10e-16 W) - you can jam that with a 1W terrestrial source for hundreds of meters around. Way more if you're willing to scale the power from car USB power levels to bigger grid-connected supplies.

LORAN, from my quick googling, looks to be about 6-7 orders of magnitude higher received power.

He's always been pragmatic - it's just that Nvidia's behavior has AFAICT actually changed.

The original you're riffing on is from the Declaration of Independence (a purely rhetorical document), not the Constitution of a decade later.

No knowledge (insider or otherwise) is needed — could just be a bet, hedged against all the other bets a company AMD's size makes.

It's about propping up the yen in foreign exchange terms, so the essential operation is buying yen with dollars to increase the price of the former in a standard microeconomics way.

US bonds happen to be the assumed-safe sink where central banks store their dollars for this eventuality.

That's the license they sign with you, ie the legal commitment they make and powers they reserve.

Policy is the internal, non-binding decision they make about how they exercise those powers, which GP comment accurately described.

Your second paragraph describes the approach in the blog post almost exactly.

The recruiters who make these boneheaded mistakes are typically organizationally separate from the actual engineering group you'd be working in.

Clock bias.

Because the clocks internal to GNSS receivers are not that accurate, if they're not at the "targeted" location they'll see that all satellites are off by a given time offset, and think that their clock is just off by that much.

"regardless of how much they spend" is not a statement that you can put in a business plan

Absolutely not

Yes - delay SYNs until an authenticated reverse lookup confirmed the IP was owned by a trusted domain. With caching to reduce common-case latency, which would otherwise be intolerable.

It was a somewhat flippant (given that GitHub doesn't implement DNSSEC either) dig at the idea of using hand-entered/hand-updated IP addresses for access control, rather than having the access control system look addresses up in the system designed to securely attest owner/ip mappings.

> You don't exactly need a translation layer. If they just gave me 1.1.1.1:: in v6, anyone migrating v4 to v6 would have the same route to me as before, and other changes like DNS6 could be gradual.

Think about this on a concrete, packet by packet level - I, from a v6 network, with a 128-bit address that cannot be represented by IPv4, decide to open a connection to 1.1.1.1. 1.1.1.1 doesn't have v6 set up, and so can't read my v6 packet and craft a response packet, because its address is invalid in v4. We need a gateway in the middle that will translate the packets from one format to another and perform the NAT function from one address space to another. This is an irreducible complexity.

> a lot of people don't even want public v6 addrs for hosts, they just want NAT/DHCP.

People don't care about whether their address is public or not, they want connectivity. SLAAC gives that to them; it is you that are insisting on adding complexity for the sake of having a non-routable address. As a user, I enable IPv6 on my router and go on my merry way; as an ISP, I assign my customer's router a /60 or /56 via DHCPv6 instead of a /24 and go on my merry way. Running an IPv6 address allocation system is a an easy, solved problem and has been for decades.

The hard problem is dual-stacking, and there is no way around that.

IPv4 addresses are in fact a subspace of IPv6 (that's NAT64). They were not by fiat declared invalid. The actual thing I think you're complaining about - the necessity for NAT64 at all - is unavoidable, because you need a NAT/protocol-translation layer for packets to actually move between the new address space and the old one.

SLAAC-by-default is not, in my experience implementing IT automation, an actual barrier for adopters. You have a router sending out RS instead of a DHCP server, to an admin this is not a meaningful change.

The problem has nothing to do with over engineering, or really anything to do with the actual contents of the IPv6 standard. It is just devilishly hard to make any backwards-incompatible change to layer 3, and address expansion is always going to be backwards incompatible.

> providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses

Yes, they do. It's called DNSSEC.

Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.

EU countries spend about 2% of GDP on their militaries. It's not at the high US levels, but it's closer to Iran's number than it is to zero.

Commander-In-Chief is not a career military post, it is an elected politician. Your barefaced assertion that he would have professional-level knowledge is resting on one an array of assumptions - that he has an interest in the details, that he respects and listens to professionals, that he has the attention span to read written briefings - that reporting indicated are false.

About 4% of the federal budget and 6% of discretionary spending at its peak, not of GDP.

Still a very high number, but nowhere near the military-budget-levels you're talking about.

The Nigerian type scams typically prey on greed; time pressure isn't part of the draw.

There's another class of scams where the draw is fear - "your son is in jail", "your bank account is under investigation and will be closed in 24 hours if you don't act now", &c. They rely on time pressure to prevent the victim from reaching out directly to the parties they're lying about and disproving the scam.

This is aimed at that particular type of scam and that particular type of victim.

It gives preferential treatment to Jews regardless of their religious practice or lack thereof.

Its self-definition as a "Jewish state" is deliberately vague about its definition of "Jewish", and is in practice closer to Western ideas of ethnicity/nationalism than to "religion".

The claim was that all religious Jews believe this. The motte-and-bailey is unseemly.