heartbeats

Well, carriers would have to block the black boxes and only allow the good networks on. AT&T can peer with Sprint or T-Mobile, but the shady carriers that lets fiber terminate into copper without asking questions have to do due diligence or get cut off.

It wouldn't be evenly distributed. Your carrier could pass on the fine at least a few hops deep, until it reaches whoever connected the shady VoIP company to the real network. In the video's example, it would be Google Voice, the owner of the hacked VoIP systems' uplink provider, or the anonymous online call services. It's rare that the spammers use payphones or prepaid cards.

Even if it's the same situation as with e-mail spam, this would also be a workable solution for that problem.

Say I have a G-Mail account. I get spam from X@hotmail.com. Now G-Mail have to pay me the fine, and Hotmail have to pay GMail the fine, and X has to pay Hotmail the fine. Sure, they can't track down X, but Hotmail have to pay up for letting bad actors on their network.

We could also generalize this to BGP, of course. I get a port 22 brute-force attempt to my server, I contact my ISP, they pay me. They contact whoever peered them, who pays, until we get to China, where some local ISP says that a PC on their network was hacked. Too bad. Either the Chinese ISP pays up, or they get depeered by their CN <-> HK ISP, or they get depeered by their uplink, and so on.

Here is an example traceroute to the Chinese ecommerce site taobao.com from Cogent. In my example, the fine would travel down this list until it finds someone unwilling to pay up, who then gets depeered.

  traceroute to 140.205.220.96 (140.205.220.96), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
   1  gi0-1-1-19.5.agr21.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.3.113)  0.693 ms  0.702 ms
   2  be2605.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.1.153)  0.741 ms  0.759 ms
   3  be2806.ccr41.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.106)  6.397 ms be2807.ccr42.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.110)  6.538 ms
   4  be2113.ccr42.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.222)  17.340 ms be2112.ccr41.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.158)  17.461 ms
   5  be2687.ccr41.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.70)  31.636 ms  31.606 ms
   6  be2928.ccr21.elp01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.30.162)  47.240 ms be2927.ccr21.elp01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.29.222)  47.095 ms
   7  be2930.ccr32.phx01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.77)  55.345 ms be2929.ccr31.phx01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.65)  55.417 ms
   8  be2931.ccr41.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.86)  66.946 ms  67.307 ms
   9  be3271.ccr41.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.102)  67.073 ms  67.072 ms
  10  38.142.238.34 (38.142.238.34)  69.608 ms  69.608 ms
  11  202.97.50.29 (202.97.50.29)  73.785 ms  73.790 ms
  12  202.97.71.193 (202.97.71.193)  206.204 ms  206.594 ms
  13  202.97.12.193 (202.97.12.193)  200.253 ms *
  14  202.97.24.249 (202.97.24.249)  206.719 ms 202.97.62.61 (202.97.62.61)  202.714 ms
  15  101.95.120.105 (101.95.120.105)  224.543 ms 101.95.120.233 (101.95.120.233)  219.260 ms
  16  124.74.166.18 (124.74.166.18)  222.636 ms 101.95.206.14 (101.95.206.14)  230.753 ms
  17  101.95.208.10 (101.95.208.10)  233.093 ms *
  18  114.80.58.82 (114.80.58.82)  237.192 ms 180.163.38.82 (180.163.38.82)  213.441 ms
  19  116.251.88.134 (116.251.88.134)  204.868 ms 116.251.88.154 (116.251.88.154)  220.342 ms
  20  140.205.58.9 (140.205.58.9)  213.268 ms 116.251.106.190 (116.251.106.190)  197.170 ms
  21  * *
  22  * *
  23  * *
  24  * *
  25  * *
  26  * *
  27  * *
  28  * *
  29  * *
  30  * *

Yeah, but if you replace the barcode that's not a problem.

I suppose you could stick one on the inside and one on the outside, as paxys suggested. Then you'd have both deterrent and tamper-resistance.

As an extra bonus, if some schmuck tilts and replaces it, the deterrent will still be in force for the next guy down the line.

That seems like a half measure. Carriers still aren't liable for letting garbage on their network, they just have to let me block it without charging me anything for the privilege.

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

Doesn't being mass-produced sort of defeat the purpose? Buy an identical label, replace the barcode, and you're done.

If the quantity is zero, the quality doesn't matter - if the alternative to joining the group is to be left out of the loop, there is practically no choice.

For example, if they write - in the group - that the next meeting is 3 PM next Wednesday at so-and-so, unless you happen to run into them at that specific time your chances of knowing this are slim.

Victim in Moscow complains to Rostelecom. They provide whatever evidence Rostelecom or Russian domestic law requires. Rostelecom complain to Sprint, who now have two choices:

1. Pay the fine for letting their customers send spam calls to Russia.

2. Ignore it, and hope they don't get depeered by Rostelecom.

If they choose the first option, they are faced with two new choices:

1. Stop the buck there, do not contact Joe, eat the loss.

2. Contact Joe and tell him to pay them $100 or get cut off.

This would lead to a self-regulatory process: bad actors would get depeered from the retail phone network, so scammers could only call other scammers.

EDIT: To clarify, Sprint wouldn't have any legal/criminal responsibilities here, everything beyond the last mile is purely voluntary, but they might have a contract with Rostelecom. If Sprint choose the second option, Rostelecom might be able to sue them in the Kansas courts for breach of contract.

The law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_Consumer_Protection_...

The solution is simple: make sure there is always someone responsible for a spam call.

If I get a spam call, my phone provider should be liable as if they had originated the call. If they got it from another provider, that provider should be liable to them, and so on and so forth. (This would be done by voluntary agreement; only the last mile should be a legal requirement)

All I would have to do is then to report my provider and get the fine. They would then have to chase down whoever connected it to them, and so on and so forth, until we reach Ivan's Shady VoIP Solutions Ltd., headquartered in the Cayman Islands. If they don't pay, no provider would want to peer with them.

What about rewriting one of these[0] hash functions for SIMD?

0: https://nullprogram.com/blog/2018/07/31/

Another solution is to change the order things are checked in. With optimum k, each hash takes about 1/2 of the possibilities out. If he'd batch it so the memory accesses are roughly ordered, it would be much faster.

EDIT:

So, for instance, if k = 19, that means there are 19 hash functions. If he goes through all the inputs, and checks: are there any hashes here falling within the first 1/19 of the memory space? If not, keep it. If so, check whether any are unset. If not, keep it. If they are, zero the pointer to the input in the array. After this is done, he should be rid of roughly 32% (0.5 * (1-(18/19)^19)) of candidates. The second pass throws out 33% of candidates, and so on and so forth.

He could even keep an absurdly large value for k and n: if it is 128G, then k = 19'053, meaning he can use an even finer increment. He'd have to spill the filter to disk, but the access patterns will be great.

> ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

Facebook might not consider it data, but the GDPR does.

Chicken and the egg. If you're sufficiently close to people to convince them to use SMS/Signal/Matrix/whatever with you, then sure, you'll be fine. But what if you're not? What if it's either "install WhatsApp and join our group chat" or nothing?

You're missing one thing: incentives.

Even if Telegram has shoddy crypto, their funding model is "we got a pile of money from a billionaire". WhatsApp's funding model is "senator, we run ads".

Thus, WhatsApp will be incentivized to lie as far as possible about these claims, whereas Telegram could at worst be considered to be mildly incompetent.

I don't see why you're getting downvoted. You're 100% right. Mozilla get money from Google and spend it on fun projects which have nothing to do with the web. This creates some very bad incentives with regard to privacy on the net. Mozilla don't seem to care about this, they just take the money and keep going.

And yet, they don't block ads by default.

They should do that. Cut a deal with some ad provider to serve non-tracking ads, and leave the rest in the dust. This would make Firefox a much more pleasant experience than other browsers, and give them some well-needed cash.

I did this. The only thing it gave me was social isolation. People look at you funny when you tell them you don't have a facebook account.

If you have a well-developed circle of friends, sure. But this only holds for what, half of Americans? I don't know people well enough that I'd have a functioning social life without Facebook, unfortunately. I think this holds for many other people as well.

Another comment goes into more detail, but it's not too complicated. In the US, a lot of people are reluctant to seek healthcare because of the high cost. So people in a poor economic situation who are starting to feel the symptoms are forced to take a gamble:

- Go to the hospital, get tested, possibly get quarantined, lose work income, possibly get fired, possibly pay large bill if uninsured

- Don't go to the hospital, hope you recover fine

If it splits half-half, that's a lot of people who are going to be going outside and infecting people.

What you're describing is called "helicopter money". It was just tried in Hong Kong, with unimpressive results.

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/hong-kong-embraces-helic...

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/02/26/1582705518000/Helicop...

I don't know. My friend managed to do this by accident - he had a pocket knife in his backpack that he forgot about. Just threw the backpack in the X-ray scanner and picked it up on the other side. Only noticed it when we were changing flights.

This was just a few years ago, a day or two after France had had one of its annual terrorist attacks.

You're thinking of public service - I mean the grants given to otherwise unprofitable newspapers. So there's a third option:

- private media without oversight, no requirements on democratic participation of all parties nor equal screen time, in return getting kickbacks by relatively transparent processes

You can. As they said in Vietnam, we had to destroy the village in order to save it. If the alternative is an Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, I really do not see what there is to lose.

Because otherwise you would get annoying off-by-27 errors whenever you did time() % 60.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second#Binary_representat...

What about Infowars? They're kooks, sure, but I can't recall them saying anything "exceedingly unsavoury".

What if all companies were to do this? What if all landlords within a ten mile radius were to tell you to piss off if you asked to rent, and all banks denied you a mortgage?

Do you think this would be a good outcome?

Should my grocery store be allowed to kick me out because they don't like my political views?

Should all grocery stores in the country be allowed to do this?

If so, how do I eat?

See, that's what I was getting at. I know Turkey is an authoritarian state, and you know Turkey is an authoritarian state, but it's still a bit of circular reasoning:

1. It's authoritarian because it hurts the free press.

2. It hurts the free press because it's Turkey doing it.

3. Turkey is doing it because they are authoritarian.

And looking from the outside, I can't see a difference. The Western media, who are funded by the Western governments, praise the Western governments for their support of freedom and democracy.

The third world media, who are funded by the third world governments, praise the third world governments for their support of tradition and family values, or whatever it is they do down there.

My point is that it's absurd to call media free when they are getting paid by those who they are supposed to investigate. A better model, I think, would be this:

1. Each year, the government gives the media money.

2. If they wish to partake in this scheme, they have to put the money they get in a fund, which must be kept separate from the rest of their assets.

3. By law, they are prohibited from withdrawing more than say 5% of the assets each year, just as they must maintain a minimum share capital.

4. At registration, the government should give the various media corporations 20x the annual contribution for their such funds.

5. Upon liquidation, they must return the excess assets in the fund to the government.

This would insulate them from short-term political decisions. Even after ten years of no funding, they would still have 60% of their assets plus whatever the return on the way they invested them in was.

A CPU costs at least $50 already. Is it that much more expensive to package it in metal?

Also, aren't they already packaged in metal? On graphics cards, the dies are directly exposed.

Liquid nitrogen cooling can already get good results in overclocking, so it seems like it should work here too.

Not true. Cloud providers can and do get depeered for political views. So the competitor have to be their own BGP peer as well.

EDIT: Since you're downvoting me, here's one example - not strictly a cloud provider, but a DoS protection provider, but I'd still argue it counts: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158406276570734592

Why is Turkey so special?

In many European countries, the media gets directly paid by the government so they don't go tits-up. This ostensibly secures a free press. At the same time, wer zahlt, schafft an. In fact, if Turkey were doing this, they would probably be criticized for blatant corruption.