All as it should be.
Reality - if they had just pulled it outside they could have had it fixed in no time.
206 karma · joined August 10, 2020
Reality - if they had just pulled it outside they could have had it fixed in no time.
This is about as far from bricked as you can get.
The irony - despite seemingly unlimited ipv6 addresses my home internet is now a mess of randomly changing ipv6 addresses... I feel like I'm back in dynamic DNS / NAT days (ipv4 + port).
The s' and u' string prefix issue in python is an absolute embarrassment. They had a perfect / clear upgrade path that would allow stuff to still work with python 2. In their Unicode purity campaign they tried to force everyone to 3 by making it a total PIA to work with 2 still (such a similar story with ipv6).
Folks were like peace out for at least 5 years until they started bending a bit (also ascii handling for HTTP stuff got super annoying). Once they backed off it got a lot better on the transition.
AWS charges $1/month or $12/year to sit on an IP address unused. This price / value pressure has freed up a TON of address space and pushed down pricing signals on a lot of ipv4 usage (ie, you can say is it worth $300M to buy a class A or maybe we should spend $200M to get IPv6 going.
I'm just pointing out that for all the complaining about google efforts to block domain jacking (which was endemic before they started their efforts) scaling the root is doable, and if the existing maintainers are too incompetent to scale it then maybe others should be allowed to.
I mean, how do they handle denial of service attacks which are going to be orders of magnitude higher in volume?
The logic here is so warped.
https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/08/a-major-bug-...
Rather than the solution being to allow for domain hijacking by turning off the redirect detectore, how about verisign, which kicked this whole thing off recently AND way back with their "sitefinder" garbage get a clue and either propose another solution to domain jacking or scale the root a bit.
This actually looks more like a situation where apple had already assessed as not reselable under their policies - so these were perhaps all for recycling only?
I don't think folks realize how SMALL the root dns traffic is. Youtube / netflix / amazon prime video are just orders and orders of magnitude more demanding in terms of bandwidth - every second they are pumping MULTIPLE HD streams to millions of folks. They measure bandwidth terrabits per second. Even at 30 frames per second, we are talking incredible bandwidth.
DNS responses should be 1K or less (often .5K). About 40 netflix viewers at their top quality use the same bandwidth? Netflix has far more than 40 users.
Can't they offer to operate some of the root zone then if it's so hard for these other folks to manage it (maybe do something with AWS / Azure etc).
It looks like QPS is around 1.3M per second? Am I way off? What the bandwidth? I'm getting 1GBps or less which seems pretty low?
If the root can't handle this how does it handle DOS floods even?
Should we just turn some of the root over to some of the bigger players that can actually scale (AWS / GCP / Azure / Netflix etc)? These rates seem so small for this level of complaining about google et al.
Their secondary resolvers run at huge volumes, everything from 8.8.8.8 to the dns for their mail and other web properties.
The way this scam often works - you send your device in, they say there is a flaw and the device is not eligible for trade-in credit because it can't be re-used. Then they offer to "recycle" it for you. Then, instead of recycling they sell it. This is the consumer side of the scam.
It can also be run against manufacturer like apple. Apple can offer trade in credit to consumers, then send it to these guys who evaluate the device. If can be resold apple gets the $100 or whatever average per device from the recycler (who can then make a moderate profit selling for $150 or whatever). If it can't be resold the recycler promises to recycle it and doesn't have to pay out anything.
There seems too often to be a push on HN to support scams of almost every type. The outrage when apple worked to alert users when folks put the cheapo third party batteries in before reselling an iphone to make battery life look good for a few weeks (HN comments = total outrage when apple alerted users) is illustrative.
Do these "geep" executives sound like the role models you want to do business with? For many folks, myself included, the answer is heck no.
Reading hacker news, and the total hate towards apple for asking others to just do basic / fair things is really interesting. Following contracts and agreements is for idiots and chumps apparently. Be a scary world if the Zuckerbergs and other growth hacking developers end up in charge!
Consumer trust in apple is going to continue to go up - you just realize how slimy the rest of the tech world is - scammer after scammer after cheater.
Note that I've seen advisors who came through an older system (ie, if this prof was older) not mesh well with new groups of candidates.
You OBVIOUSLY need to talk to a few students - ideally those with a somewhat similar background to yours - to get a sense of fit.
Some notes.
In old system, if a grad student had kids (usually you waited till much more plentiful back then tenure track position to start family), the (male) grad student's partner stayed home full time with the children. Now families often have two working / studying parents - so your grad student is MUCH more likely to have more parental responsibilities - which despite what anyone says IS a big distraction (yes, I know lean in says you can have it all, but raising kids is wonderful but also takes time).
Manner of speaking etc. The article mentions the advisor making fun of how folks speak (??). That's a weird thing to make fun of frankly, but groups someone advised used to be very homogenous. I notice this just with age gap - so much more shorthand / casual communication style.
"My advisor’s words would pierce right through me and the period at the end of each sentence felt like a punch in the gut."
Pretty intense stuff! A period = a punch?
BTW - I think 80% of the phd system is a bit of a racket :) But that's only because I got to hear (daily) complaints about advisors and research and being a phd candidate (and then postdoc hell continues this!!).
Brokers used to front run these orders in the past - which was illegal. But an algo bidding on top is fine because the order is by then public
So traders would trick the algo by placing some orders on the other side so the algo would get ahead of those instead (if there was more volume going that way) and execute against the position they had. Once the algo ran ahead of the opposite orders, they are cancelled out.
Anyways, this is not legal under current market rules, even though someone could execute against those orders while they were up.
One question - algo orders can be pretty darn abusive (but seem rarely prosecuted). Nutty cancel to fill rates, remember flash orders, quote stuffing etc etc...
Things are a lot cheaper on android to, so they win on price.
The one android phone I ever purchased
1) Shipped with bloatware in the base install (!!!)
2) Shipped with an older android version.
3) The updates never came
4) The messaging story was CRAP (unsecured SMS / spam SMS)
Meanwhile I'm getting 4-5 years of updates on every iphone I have ever purchased. I've never gotten spam imessages I don't think. etc.
Apple choses these features because they think it will let them charge more for their stuff - which I think it does. Making a product people want by reducing scam behavior shouldn't be illegal, and people wanting your product and being willing to pay extra for it doesn't make you a monopoly. Def makes apple rich though!
Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end including app store things will be a bit more reasonable?
And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall / use the lockout thing you are talking about. And you don't think that will damage the overall apple brand?
Developers no doubt disagree with this, they have created a web that is filled with crap. Let's be 100% clear about that.
Spam calls via voip, spam into email, ddos floods of every sort imaginable, impossible to unsubscribe, cramming and slamming on subscription renewals and the list goes on. They don't want root on your device to help you, but to screw you in enough cases that you shouldn't give them root. Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc.
Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on.
You need to look at what apple is doing in context. The world on the net developers and hackers here on HN have created is terrible in many ways for many many people. At some point folks are just tied of the endless scams.
Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden.
The app store, as the method that pricing, refunds, subscriptions etc are handled, is part of this story of trust or lack of trust.
And yes - apple does review use of permission by developers upon submission. Want to use a touch bar api, they may ask you to show how that feature is used in app (third party libs would use these features to help fingerprint machines etc). The irony - we've had people here complaining about how unfair it was their app was rejected (often because they link without knowing to some scam monetization library that abuses or tries to abuse apis).
What is incredible is that developers on HN seem to have no clue why people actually like what apple does. For example, when they notified you that you had a non-genuine battery - that was met with HN outrage. When they did things that made replacing certain key security sensitive parts harder (finger print sensor for unlock etc) - again outrage, and apparently they figured out a way to make it easier without losing security.
The name of the game these days is trust. Do you trust you telecom to ship a bloat free phone? Apple? The folks who have that trust are going to be able to charge a premium and gain more control.
The desire to have consumers installing any app from anywhere on the web that you can browse to using the web browser is FAR FAR more terrifying - but is what HN comments push over and over. Reality - when it comes time to buy their kids a phone, these same outraged HN folks - buy their kids an iphone :)
On the iphone, if I buy a used phone and a scammer has popped a cheapo battery in to show no battery life slow down - apple alerts me (also unpopular on HN BTW).
If I buy an android phone from most carriers, their "security" involved pre-loading it with unremovable adware and tracking apps. This is more secure - are you serious?
The google play store has less malware? The permissions process for android apps has been terrible.
With apple, I can now give apps access to specific photos in my camera roll, it works great. It alerts me to folks doing background tracking and makes it easy to turn off (even after I said yes earlier).
What's nuts is that developers don't understand why consumers benefit or like this and want the DOJ to blow open this little bubble of sanity so they can push their crapware through or their auto-billing app stores through.
Epic doesn't allow a civil law process, they force arbitration anyways. So the deck is stacked against you
At some point you have a life, kids, wife, etc and playing these games is not worth it. Apple markets to those of us who even though tech savvey don't want to play the game some of these big scammer / microtransaction folks want to play.
You can get unlocked android phones and install whatever you want. But the reality for our parents / grandparents etc is that the folks who want to have root on their device want to scam them, auto bill them with non-cancelable billing etc etc etc, market to them by tracking everything, turn all their data over to the govt.
We have basically one company who is trying to do a consumer / privacy first play. They went toe to toe with the DOJ to avoid unlocking the phone of a known shooter.
As more and more of our life lands on these devices, I think this is the smart play. Go use another phone if you don't like it.
Apple has carved out a small but lucrative area which is basically pretty consumer attentive. I think google assistant is way better, but I just like having a hassle free experience with apple too much to switch for what might be a better spec'ed product. I get my phone for 3 years, get applecare+ on it, and away I go. I've actually used AppleCare once, I was in and out in something like 15 minutes with a new phone. I've had apple remind me to cancel app subscriptions when I delete an app if I won't be re-installing! You get a notice before renewals on subscriptions, the terms are always clear and in dollars, consistent interface to cancel and get terms (ie, no FREE 1 month (and then fine print - $50/month after)).
The irony is that these are the sleezeballs - the EXACT folks that make doing subscriptions online so annoying and illustrate what apple is trying to create with their platform - TRUST.
They make games for Xbox - I'm sure microsoft wants a cut. Playstation I'm sure does the same.
This has everything to do with the apple eco-system from the consumer standpoint. I realize the issue here is that folks like tinder can't run whatever scam they want on the apple platform. Why is this a crime again?
Don't like it? There are tons of other phones out there, apple doesn't have close to a monopoly in smartphone sales.
You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist).
"Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a subscription through “confusing and cumbersome cancellation practices.” The FTC claims users must click through two pages of survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that notes the cancellation flow as “hard to find, tedious and confusing.” “Members often think they’ve cancelled when they have not and end up with unwanted renewals,” More recently they were doing the fake match emails to generate signups. I'm not sure if that case has settled yet.
You've got Epic.
They are pretty famous for targeting kids and getting them to spend their parents money, auto-saving payment info parents may enter to allow a single purchase, microtransactions nightmare and using "v bucks" / bannanas etc to make it less transparent in terms of what things are actually costing. Refund / complaint procedures are horrible. "When Stecklare tried to request a refund from Epic Games, she says, it was like hitting a brick wall. She sent multiple emails over several days but says she received only boilerplate responses."....
Spotify
They find no name bands they don't have to pay to do covers of major musical acts or replace the "best of..." albums with these trash albums. They've also been sued repeatedly over their royalty practices. The lawsuit (below) alleges that Spotify has participated in "an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement" around the mechanical license for many of the songs on its platform.
Having these folks in charge of app subscriptions and setting standards inside the apple walled garden is going to be a TRAIN WRECK if they win this case. So much trust is going to be lost by users who are used to stuff in the apple world not having these and other scammers playing around in it.
Bottom line, less is more and leverage solutions that have demonstrated actual market traction. A lot of stuff geared towards the poor has no market in the paying world for a reason - it's crap (no pun intended).
Perhaps there is a human manure angle that gets missed with these other approaches, and they may be more resource intensive in terms of plastic?
Please confirm and I will work to spread the news - can I cite you as the source?
I just said, I'll need to work Saturdays to make this happen, and will need at least 2 others in on Saturdays (in office - full day work). I asked for +50% and got it.
It helped I'd been clear that my schedule was 8:30-5:00 M-F to start and was younger at the time.
Ironically - these days I just wish I had free time and curse myself fairly often for being over-committed. So rarely worth it even for more $ especially if you have kids and are a stranger to them. While I'm paid extremely well QOL is WAY down and stress is very high.
It's almost impossible to have rational discourse these days because accurately describing things is no longer required (and if you care to try you are "mocked and shunned") so everyone is arguing without a common set of understandings or facts or even language that is consistent.
Kind of pathetic.
Your water company may be a monopoly. You may have no choice but to use it (in cities you cannot even drill your own well or in some cases are banned from collecting rainwater). That is a monopoly. As someone who grew up using a well, this is a clear difference and impact.