vlan0

Right, so RF issues will possibly exist on all frequencies. And yet we continue to build devices on the most congested spectrum available.

Likely not a bad way to clean money.

True for devices under your control. But think venues with large BYOD counts. Add in that all client devices generally transmit at full power. End result is an environment with not a lot of headroom in the 2.4 space.

Yes and in some uses cases it works against you. 2.4 is incredibly crowded without adding 802.11 to the mix. My IoT admins would have less complaints if they could take advantage of my small cell 5Ghz spectrum. This isn't 2005 with widely deployed asymmetrical wireless networks.

>My 2.4ghz is basically all IOT these days.

Yup. And it's exactly why some of my IoT admins are struggling. There is only so much spectrum to go around.

Yes. And 2.4 lives and dies by that sword. What downsides might there be in areas where dozens of APs hear each other and 100s of clients hear each other?

Is what you described a truth for all IoT devices? If I have los of my AP, why do I need 2.4Ghz? Even so, what SNR do you truly need for this low bandwidth application? Where is the engineering here?

I have a unique position of having a data set over 8000 APs with 40k unique devices. If you design properly, there is no need for 2.4 ever. 2.4Ghz congestion (with nearly no actual 802.11 traffic) is very high. To the point where the IoT folks are struggling.

I don't understand what possesses these folks to continue making 2.4ghz devices. I understand there are use cases for low bandwidth, high range. But surely we've passed the point where that is more desirable to most than lower latency and high throughput, right?

And if I think back to my 30 years of IT, environments with NAT end up with lazy engineering from systems and application folks. It doesn't provide an environment that forces folks to understand their problems holistically. Thus, relying on perimeter firewalling and NAT as a large catch all. It's a bad security practice imo

It's always important to remind one's self that "who you are" is simply the story one is attached to. Things like meditation or psilocybin can help bring that to light.

Can be said about so many things in life. It's almost like we don't learn and just repeat in loops.

That’s interesting. My testing for EAP-TLS and OWE networks has shown modern clients will simply create another profile when it detects the change in the AKM suite. Hard roam between wpa2/wpa3, but still seem less for the client.

Listening and responding is just like singing. If you are "thinking about it while doing it" it feel off to everyone. Like how singing is best when you embody the lessons and move your focus away from "getting it right". It has to feel like you and not you playing a character.

I can see why someone might have that opinion. I think the author hasn't met himself yet. As one can only meet and understand another as deeply as they have met themselves. I do wonder if he would gain more awareness of his self after a couple 7g mushroom runs.

I hope we see this more at the municipal level. Just thinking about dense neighborhoods with sizable lithium storage solutions raises eyebrows. One house fire could spread so quickly.

The problem is, and always has been, land owners and their ego.

Honestly, none of the comments here coming from a place with enough protocol knowledge to talk about the "whys"

I operate a large enterprise wireless network with 80mhz 5Ghz channels and 160Mhz 6Ghz channels. It is possible if your environment allows.

How do you think speeds effect airtime utilization/optimization? And how does this change with lower PHY rates?

"tech unicorn" why use those words?

"The reward for good work is more work."

- timm chiusano

What is described in that post is a skill issue. The attention issues spoke about can be worked through. Because attention is a skill like anything else. And if one does not learn to practice. One becomes victim to it

Do you wonder why that feeling arising inside of you?

Hmm not just coffee stains too. If you've ever had a water leak on gypsum board, the edges of the water ring are darker.

You're not wrong. Data shows driver under 20 are involved in 4.8 fatal crashes per 100m miles.

Speed, alcohol, lower seat-belt use, and of course, inexperience are listed as the primary contributing factors.

It's an interesting bar to set. And it shows how we're willing to bend that safety bar to allow seniors to drive on the roads despite their clear cognitive disadvantage.

Let's look at some raw data. Mind you, we have 100x more data for the human drivers below. ie, billions of miles vs millions for automated drivers.

Pop examined Fatal-crash rate All Level‑4 automated‑driving tests in the U.S. 1.5–1.7 per 100 M mi Drivers 70‑74 yr 1.7 per 100 M mi Drivers 75‑79 yr 2.1 per 100 M mi Drivers 80‑84 yr 4.3 per 100 M mi Drivers ≥ 85 yr 7.6 per 100 M mi

So statistically, you are much more likely to be killed by a senior citizen. So to make a consistent argument using data around safety, we should maybe be revoking the licenses of older folks?

edit: Jesus, 19% of all US fatal crashes in 2023 invloved seniors. While they make up 15% of the driver population.

Alright, so how do you propose we decentralize the Internet physically? Because that's really the crux of this. And what has allowed the mass surveillance by state actors.

And how exactly would that work?

Ya, webauthn with hardware requirement would kill it too. Gotta physically touch it. It’ll be gross when someone starts to automate that too.

Happiness is an inside job. Sitting with your emotions is very important. That's not to say we can tolerate an unlimited amount of information. But rather to highlight that we can become the observer of our emotions, rather than be consumed by them.

This is a good point. No matter the intent, we must also focus on the real world outcomes of said policy.

The Citizens United ruling didn’t just clarify the FEC’s authority, it fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American politics by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on elections, which critics argue disproportionately amplifies the influence of wealth. While the Court didn’t explicitly equate money with speech, its decision enabled the flow of money into the political system in a way that is effectively treated as free speech under the First Amendment. Far from "restoring the status quo," Citizens United created a system where the wealthy can now spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections, a shift that has drastically altered democratic representation.