xoa

Thanks for the reply, and I'm definitely all in favor of assessing things in light of threat model! That said:

>I'm more worried about being lawfully murdered in front of my family than I am going to jail because my ssh sessions were read

I guess I'd ask if you're really sure about that as a threat model? The fact is that such things are really really rare, particularly for anything white collar-ish. They get press precisely because they're unicorns. The "lawful" bit as well, one of the whole things here is that it's, at best, very dubiously lawful at all; they've been able to skirt that question so far via keeping it all secret and trying to hide from individual suit. Can't do that if a warrant from a local magistrate judge is needed and a private residence is raided though.

In contrast "you can beat the rap but not the ride" seems less dramatic but a lot more common, and in particular more than actual jail all the little ways the government has tried to fuck with people (like putting them on travel lists) that are opaque and much more difficult to even prove are the result of an organized scheme. I'm personally more worried in the near future about "chilling effects at a scale", not hundreds of activists in gulags but millions of people who get pressure in terms of financials or tax investigations or pressure on employers or always getting pulled in the security lines and on and on, and then some sizable fraction change their behavior as a result. It feels more concretely productive and practical to focus on making sure the government would have trouble both scaling and hiding unconstitutional behavior.

>Well, and what are you concretely suggesting here?

Having your own server and infra, at least in part.

>Having my own door kicked down and my dog shot so they can get at my personal home server?

The government doesn't have infinite resources, nor is it immune to political considerations (obviously, that's the problem here!). There is an enormous, qualitative and quantitative difference between:

  1) we must get an actual warrant in a lot of different physical jurisdictions across the country all with different judges and then spend the money and availability to send physical meat agents to said locations, often rural and remote, across the country to an unknown physical situation with at least some areas where people might shoot at us, and all equipment needed for that, and will by definition have to disclose everything to our targets

vs

  2) an agent can comfortably from their central office chair use a preexisting automated system to a central cloud portal to demand info secretly from companies that will just comply without any question

Scale is inherent in the topic here. It's not just "why", "HOW" is "ICE running one of the largest anti-left surveillance ops"? Well, in part because they can do so so cheaply, efficiently, and stealthily via purely electronic means. They aren't kicking down ten million doors and shooting ten million dogs, and indeed they CAN'T do that, not because they wouldn't like to but because it's physically impossible with their resources and would provoke furious (undoubtedly including some lethal) pushback.

And again, even if absolutely nothing else, it means something to know they're after you. Nothing stops you from immediately surrendering your server when asked, but you can then also instantly get a lawyer/support and push back right then and there. You can't adapt to what you either never even realize happened or only realized too late.

>gerrymandering

I don't know the specifics of Brazil's system, but at least in the US gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Presidency or Senate, only the House. It's also not without risk. Gerrymandering is bad, but it doesn't change the totals of votes; it attempts to reapportion "excess" votes yielding a large win margin in one area to give winning, but necessarily smaller, margins in more areas. Amongst other challenges though that smaller margin means if there is a wave then a gerrymander can turn into a "dummymander" where previously safe districts get flipped.

>funny business

This is actually pretty dang hard in anything but a total sham, and even then is at least obvious it happened. Some timy fiddling at the margins may be possible to sneak through, and yeah some elections that might make the difference. But that can't counter any serious victory. The more common technique seems to be trying to suppress the vote. But as well as also not being trivial it also too risks backfiring by motivating people much harder. There is a lot of human psychology around "loss", people often absolutely hate things being taken from them even if they were complacent about having them.

>Why is there still an exorbitant "cleaning fee"

Are you serious? I do the dishes and take out trash/recycling (and other regular cleaning work) as an obvious matter of course to not live in a total stinky shithole. But also once a month we pay for a real service to do a serious cleaning that gets into all the corners and under furniture and ceiling and descaling in the bathroom (hard water) etc etc, which my SO wants kept up with and I think that's reasonable. Between kids, pets, guests and so on more accumulates in a house then trivial regular clean up deals with. They're not the same thing; everyone is expected to do their dishes and contribute to taking out the trash or other chores, but not necessarily to putting on heavier duty protective kit and dealing with bathroom tile or oven accumulation. And obviously there's a fee for that (and putting it off to 2-4 months isn't actually necessarily helpful if it ends up meaning each cleaning takes much longer and thus costs more).

Not having used in forever nor ever run an AirBnB, I will say that yes, I can see it being annoying to get charged if you were just there overnight and caused no issues. And I strongly think that anything which is part of standard practice after every single visit should also be part of the upfront price not a "fee". Extra fees should only be for unique things, like someone actually creating a big mess that takes extra time. But I also think basic humanity that takes a few minutes is different from something that takes an hour and extra equipment. If you leave a sink full of dirty dishes or trash laying around that's disrespectful, gross, will get worse much more quickly then dust bunnies. I'd be ok with dinging someone for that. Cleaners aren't lesser people servants, they're specialist professionals there to help not be maids to spoiled brats. A hotel room (or BnB) mini kitchen isn't a full service restaurant. If you want that level of help that to me feels reasonable to say is extra.

>Taking out a loan for something that depreciates as fast as a car seems like the dumbest thing a person could do.

...what? For most the world by area (so at least 20-30% of the population, even in Europe) arbitrary point to point mechanical transportation is a requirement for work/life at least a significant chunk of the year. Most will also either flat out need, or find quite valuable: 1) Having that capability on demand. 2) Being able to permanently customize it to suit their needs (be it accessibility, having tools and organizational systems onboard, or most basically having what can be transported along with them match their common/rare needs).

The most economical way to manage that in general is owning your own vehicle. But it's a large capital expenditure upfront. Getting a loan to spread that out over time is one of the most basic purposes of debt. The ROI is in the actual utility, not in some sort of asset appreciation. Which is how most economics is right? I didn't replace all my incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs because I expected to be able to resell them later for more money, I bought them because they deliver far more useful visible wavelength photons per watt, and with more precise tuning and far less toxicity and other concerns then fluorescent. If I needed to replace 10k bulbs and wanted to get a loan for it the economics would be pretty straightforward to pencil out even with the expectation the entire value of the bulbs would go to zero wouldn't it? Taking out a loan for an EV car isn't any different.

From the second paragraph in the article:

>In 1875, Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects. However, there has been a lack of conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis.

Can you clarify how you got "But Darwin, if I understand correctly, classified the plant as carnivorous" out of that? Because it sounds like Darwin observed that there existed this feature on the plants that appeared adapted to carnivorous behavior, but didn't actually observe it in action (and of course he didn't have isotopic tracking to provide hard proof of molecular absorption either). So it was a hypothesis based on feature observation, and now someone has gotten around to proving that as fact via experiment. Not something radically new in terms of technique sure, could have been proved long ago in principle (this sort of tracking was core to what settled the original DNA/protein genetics debates), but still fun to read about and nice to see more getting learned about the species in our world.

I think it's a bad sign when someone immediately resorts to strawmen and argument from incredulity in their counter-argument:

>If a consumer website decided tomorrow that it would only accept attested passkeys, it would lock out almost all of its own users, instantly. What website is going to do that?

The original didn't argue that, nor has absolutely anyone else concerned, nor has that been what has happened in historical examples people were concerned about. Because yeah of course that's ridiculous, it's "boiling a frog" by throwing it in already boiling water, that's not how it works. If anyone has freedom-reducing longer term plans for use of passkey attestation, the emphasis is on "longer term", being malicious doesn't mean being stupid. Step 1 is obviously getting people into the passkey ecosystem and out of passwords at all, which could well take years. And importantly as much as possible into closed passkey ecosystems. This is indeed one of the initial danger signs, because the author:

>iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, 1Password, Bitwarden

Is mixing together things that aren't like the other. Quick author, what's the EXPORT story for each of these ecosystems? Of those, Bitwarden can export a passkey into a plain JSON if you want. Do the others support that too, or at best only "app to app" encrypted transfer, creating a closed ecosystem? Already, can I get passkeys from iCloud/Google/1Pass into KeePass? Or is this restricted """for my protection :^)"""?

Author doesn't even touch on the lock-in that's already beginning. And right now everyone can technically claim "oh no of course you're not locked in! You just have to use an official option, or you can merely visit hundreds of sites individually and register new passkeys in all of them". Is it hard to see how players like Bitwarden would be pressured on continuing to offer plain export?

Then when most of the population is using passkeys everywhere in a closed ecosystem, now what is the response if friction slowly starts getting added. OK, you can still use what you like, but only export to other approved players. OK, you can still use unattested, but it's off by default now, "advanced users" can go enable it with this checkbox in the settings. OK, manual is still an option, but now it's buried deep and behind dark patterns and requires a text command. Hi everyone, we have statistics to show that only 0.85% of our users still use unattested keys. The support burden and security risk is now too high."

Like, we've seen this movie before.

>IMHO, that also should be addressed from the legal perspective very strongly

Then do that FIRST (or at the same time). Don't give us, yet AGAIN, the tired bs song and dance about how you'll make things worse first and then totally someday address the other part properly, and oops what a surprise that turns out to be too hard nevermind.

>But forcing Safari for every Apple owner is certainly not the solution.

Objectively it is a solution though. Because it's been done, and it's been more effective than nothing, while meanwhile nothing has happened from a legal or political angles. If a better solution can be done down the road great, but a hack dealing with a problem non-optimally can absolutely be better then just having the problem completely unaddressed. And count me skeptical that any government is going to have the will or capability to actually address what a lot of us already hate about not just the Chrome monopoly but that entire approach (I don't in fact want my web browser to be a full lowest common denominator operating system with low level hardware access thanks). I dislike much of what Apple does now but I'm glad their selfish interests have happened not to align that way either. Until monopoly lock-in gets better addressed, one of the main ways to push back is via another monopoly lock-in that has different incentives.

>You can easily have you own configuration without logging in.

Are you trying to gaslight/troll us now? Separate user accounts is precisely the mechanism of having your own configuration on a multiuser system. Log out of Hacker News right now (or open in a private window or whatever), and then tell us how to "easily" configure showdead/noprocrast/topcolor etc without an account. How do I sit down at my Mac or BSD or Linux machine and have everything the way I want with no logging in?

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

>Because the minimum wage under US law for a tipped job is $2.13/hour and most find it socially and morally problematic to deny that person their primary source of income.

This is a common but incorrect meme and misunderstanding. Setting aside that the federal min wage of $7.25/hr is a universal floor and states can (and many do) go much higher, the difference for tipped jobs is that it becomes a "guaranteed minimum" instead of "guaranteed payment". Ie, for an untipped job, the employer must simply pay minimum wage or higher, period. For a tipped job, the employer must pay the $2.13/hr no matter what, but if the amount of tips the employee gets plus averages out to being equal or greater than $7.25/hr the employer doesn't need to pay more. However, if the employee does not get enough tips to reach $7.25/hr, the employer must make up the difference. So ultimately nobody is allowed to end up with less than minimum wage. The law just allows a different path to get there for tipped employees. If nobody tipped at all, employees would still get minimum wage (or higher).

Of course, it's completely reasonable to argue that federal minimum wage itself is disgustingly low. It doesn't auto-adjust to reflect inflation, and the highest purchasing power it ever had was back in 1968. Congress last increased it to $7.25 in 2009 and has left it that way 17 years later. Even by official definitions of the federal poverty line (themselves grossly outdated underestimates), minimum wage is below it. But it's still not good to confuse the matter by claiming any employer is legally allowed to let their employees end up with below minimum wage (that some certainly break the law is important too of course).

Edit: Straight from the horse's mouth (department of labor's FLSA page):

>The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of at least the Federal minimum wage to covered, nonexempt employees. An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the tips received equals at least the Federal minimum wage, the employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the Federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference.

>Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the Federal and state wage laws, the employee is entitled to the provisions which provides the greater benefits.

>Arguably, you'd still have better productivity had you not have to sign-in.

No, that is not arguable for anyone who takes more than a few seconds to think about it. Signing in has nothing to do with authentication, it's about things like "I want to have my own preferences set for showdead/noprocrast/etc. I want to maintain my own lists of favorites." Authentication & security are about making sure others don't access/alter your account or use your property or the like without permission, not about there being infinite resources and everyone being perfectly identical.

>So you are still making a trade-off

Nope.

>You are paltering.

No, I'm honestly engaging with the topic and your post, vs tossing around insults.

>The premise was not to enhance security, but to design a world where security and productivity are not tradeoffs.

And I gave you examples, including engaging with your own example/question. You claimed that "most people would certainly be more productive if they hadn't had to authenticate themselves". But IDing and authenticating are different operations, people would need to ID regardless even in a world where no security was necessary. So if the marginal cost of auth over ID is zero, then by definition that means there is no tradeoff between security and productivity. Something like a security key/card is an example of accomplishing that. Plugging that in and typing 6 numbers or touching it is not merely no extra effort vs typing my user name alone, it's literally faster.

And again to other examples, anything transparent to the user is, again, by definition not an impact on productivity. For another not merely "common" but "near universal" example, see full disk encryption (which is now often the default even with no authentication at all). FDE definitely addresses a few classes of threat scenario. What do you argue is the tradeoff in productivity?

>So did the Democrats.

How did Democrats have the choice of Haley vs Trump?

>Absolving them of fault and putting 100% of the blame on Trump voters is the fantasy of the Left.

No, it's sanity of the remaining non-radical Right, and has nothing to do with the Left at all. The Democrats were not in charge of the Republican primary. Only Republicans were. Only Republicans were responsible for Trump being their coalition's nominee, all three times. They had every possibility to eliminate him with no Democrat input at all. They wanted him as POTUS vs every single other Republican possibility in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, that's all there is to it.

>I would love to hear about a world where security and productivity are not counter acting forces.

Well, it's this one? Or at least for a wide array of practices. To take a trivial example, can you explain how switching encryption from DES to AES (a clear improvement to security) is counteractive to productivity? Of course not, whether it's AES or ChaCha20-Poly1305 or ROT13 the choice of underlying cipher is transparent to the higher level user/application. Or how about reducing memory overflow bugs? That improves security, while also reducing a certain class of crashes. How is reducing software crashes counteractive to productivity?

Even if we take your silly example you clearly intend as a gotcha:

>For a start, most people would certainly be more productive if they hadn't had to authenticate themselves.

People have to identify themselves though in a multi-user environment anyway. Even completely putting aside any sort of security, we all of course have our own preferences for work environment, our own collections of data, etc etc etc. Duh. When we access a system (be it via GUI or CLI or web site) we need to say "I want to use xyz account" anyway. So the marginal cost to auth well can be zero. Using a password manager means "entering user name" and "entering user name and password at the same time" both have the exact same cost: 1 click of a button. Or if using a smartcard/USB PIV token or the like instead, it again can be the same effort: insert it, tap something.

Certainly it's true that sometimes there are unavoidable tradeoffs. But there's a lot of low hanging fruit where things can be made more convenient/productive and more secure at the same time.

>In this particular case the credit goes go the opposite side. They screwed up so much as to make this possible.

I'm sorry, but this is complete horse manure, albeit it's become a favorite fantasy/apologist/woe-is-me take on the right as the Trump disaster continues to unfold. But the opposition had NOTHING to do with Trump being chosen for POTUS. The Right had a perfectly decent choice: Nikki Haley. She had plenty right policies and no doubt would have made much of the left very upset, but she is also intelligent, sane, and cares to the normal degree about the country and basics of the constitution. She'd have been fine. She'd also have trivially creamed Democrats, and be holding Congress vastly better fwiw.

But out of the entirety of the US, only a single state (Vermont) voted against Trump. Every single last bit of the rest of the country chose Trump. There were no Democrats on the list for the Republican primary. Republicans could have sent Trump packing no problem, and then taken the WH and a bigger chunk of the House/Senate to boot. Trump being in the general and then WH was and forever will be 100% on the GOP.

>Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....

Those costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone, that's the entire problem! Externalized costs are still costs, someone (or everyone) must still pay them. But when they're externalities instead of internalized, then they're hidden (which leads to gross inefficiency) and they're imposed on people who get no benefit and no choice (which is theft). Mass pollution is literally stealing money and life from a population and inefficiently funneling some of that back to the thief/thieves. It's as if transport companies were stealing 50% of the fuel they used to fill their trucks, and people came along saying "you need to pay for all the fuel you use", and then you argued against that saying "well who do we think those costs will be passed on to...."

When the costs are built into the price, then the direct participants pay, that filters out, and everyone can see exactly what they are and are appropriately incentivized to search for solutions to reduce them, same as every other cost that goes into a good or service. The Free Market is essentially a massively distributed constraint solver, and the "invisible hand of the market" is the cumulative billions of independent actions taken by participants in response to the system constraints and what they know. To function sustainably and efficiently, there has to be a high degree of information symmetry and cost internalization, or else decisions will obviously be distorted.

If one is worried about cost burdens, the best general place is direct unencumbered monetary payment to end consumers in need [0]. That is both very low administrative overhead, and still leaves them in a position to make the most efficient decisions for their own personal situation and fully reward producers who do a better job and reducing costs/improving quality.

----

0: Or arguably even better, a universal flat payment to the whole population, but the politics of that are harder.

>They've already closed down 2 peaker power plants because of this, so it doesn't seem to just be about handling power outages, but also handling fluctuating power usage instead of firing up extra power plants.

Yes, that was a significant early argument I remember around the public benefits. The daily power spikes have always been a major challenge particularly when you don't have much commercial/industrial base. And even in the earliest period of the original 2000 home pilot they were surprised and pretty happy about how much load could be spread and the resulting savings. Note though that regulators were cautious and there was controversy around how well it'd actually work, you can find articles like this 2019 VT Digger one [0] from the era. Fortunately it did indeed work out, but easy to forget it was all pretty new at one point.

----

0: https://vtdigger.org/2019/09/05/state-calls-for-investigatio...

>The generator would have been yours, and only used for your needs.

It also would have required constant testing and cost whether I used it or not, with no ROI whatsoever beyond power backup, a lot more noise/local pollution/size, storage of significant amounts of extra fuel (be it propane or diesel) with the resulting challenges, etc. Maybe the best bet and the one I was most strongly considering would be a PTO generator I could hook my tractor up to, then I'd get all the engine testing and fuel refreshing/storage "for free" on some level, in that I run the tractor anyway. But that still would have been dead cost most of the time, and on a basic but real human physical level, having to go out to the barn to hook things up and unhook them in the heart of winter wasn't a delightful prospect either. Propane doesn't go bad and maybe I could have finagled that into my heating system for a unified tank instead of multiple but that's still its own complexity, and place to house it and so on. And in retrospect that would have reduced the value of the heat pumps I've done since.

Batteries are nice. And I'm glad it wasn't only used for my needs. I like helping my neighbors, my town, and my state.

>It wouldn't have involved any data collection, the uncompensated use of your bandwidth, or exposed you to so much liability.

I'm definitely sensitive to data collection, and full local control has always been something I've cared a lot about and is a significant consideration going forward. But I've got the PW isolated on its own VLAN going through my OPNsense router, and the granularity of its perspective is I think pretty course. Given what I'm running I just don't think there's a whole lot, if anything, it can glean the power company couldn't already, it's pretty out there on the master panel so it doesn't even see just the house, use from the barn and office and so on is all mixed into the signal. Taking into account what was on offer and far tighter finances at the time I think I did the best I could.

This is also a case where I think some level of regulated, low granularity population data may be pretty important in terms of infra planning our shift to only renewables and a smarter grid. I'll have to keep thinking about that though.

>They may do this, but by their own terms they aren't obligated to

I'd have to double check if my terms from back then are different then what they offer now, but ultimately the fact remains that across hundreds of outages and blips over 8-9 years with a couple of devastating floods and storms in the mix it has never been an issue even once. These aren't megacorps, utilities here are pretty tiny by national standards and pretty responsive (as well as regulated).

>The state contracts them to provide the people with reliable power and you pay them for that service. They should be expected to reasonably deliver that in exchange. Installing their equipment inside people's homes can be part of how they manage that responsibility, but it's still their responsibility and they should compensate you for that and not expect you to pay them even more for the privilege of paying their costs and accepting liability.

GMP has I believe something like 10,000 miles of pole distribution lines for 265000 customers, but of course those customers are not evenly distributed, there are towns around here with literally double digits of people. And it's the biggest one, there are tons of smaller outfits and coops etc. "Reliable" doesn't mean "perfect" and never has, that's just not possible at the prices people can afford here.

I mean really, on some level everyone needs to be ready to contribute in general for life here sometimes. State is responsible for roads and such too, but if it's bad I and others get out our chainsaws (now electric! electric chainsaws are AWESOME) and winches and so on and get to work. State police provide coverage and will respond eventually, but it might be 30-120 minutes (or more sometimes). I've taken first responder courses, folks volunteer for fire departments and other roles, folks have guns. Others who can't do any of that can still bring people out clearing trees hot food and drinks and general support and that's a serious contribution and appreciated too. Dunno, not saying utilities shouldn't keep pushing hard and being pushed, nobody wants to be a floor mat, but I feel like they've been pretty solid and they really have been trying hard over the last few decades.

>It's honestly not a bad idea conceptually. It seems like it can have real benefits, but the terms are exploitative.

Some of your list feels like reasonable avenues for improvement, others feel totally unrealistic to a degree that it'd really end of restricting who could benefit. I don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze there. But BYOB is an option with a self-consumption plan, where rather then supplying power back you instead basically get disconnected from the grid during peak events, see [0]. The terms and conditions aren't nothing, but power infrastructure is pretty serious business and I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the utility not to want some pretty clear control and terms around it. And if you want out of it looks pretty reasonable, 30 days notice and you pay back a prorated portion of upfront incentives and that's that.

Also, "bandwidth", seriously? I'm looking at Netflow for the electric infra VLAN and it's like, 1.5-4 kbps, with occasional spikes to... 25 kbps for like a second. Yeah we're the boonies and progress is slow, but nice outfits like NEK Broadband [1] have been working hard and we've got fiber now, and of course Starlink is an option, sometimes even cellular. But even on crappy old 5/1 ADSL like I had to live with for 20 years it's not much. Come on. Rural America isn't that far back, we've gotten a ways beyond 14.4k modems.

----

0: https://greenmountainpower.com/rebates-programs/home-energy-...

1: https://get.nekbroadband.org/

>We should be doing this as a society (or as a state or as a utility company) instead of relying on individual do-gooders to pay for it.

Sure, but we aren't yet, at least not remotely to the extent required. And we all individually have benefited from the externalized pollution that fossil fuels have been responsible for, this isn't just some nebulous other thing right? It's not unreasonable imo that yeah, we individually should try to pay for that damage we ourselves "profited" from, even while simultaneously trying to vote and organize towards broader solutions. But feeding money into getting off fossil fuel is both directly personally helpful and broadly helpful.

>70-80% of the cost sounds very good, but if you're not getting any latitude on how the things are used, that 20-30% is still unfair. If they belong to the utility, the utility makes all decisions regarding it, and you are giving up your space for it, if anything you should be getting paid, not paying.

I don't agree with you, and it's my money, my buildings and my call to make. I've gotten a plenty solid direct benefit in ROI over the last 8-9 years for the $3k it cost me one time only vs the $15k a couple of PowerWall 2s would have been upfront and then the rate shifting and minimal solar I was in a position for at the time, or alternatively the cost of a new generator and then all the fuel and ongoing maintenance required. The $12k in savings thanks to the utility is money I could put into other investments that have had their own ROI since then. I do think the math now for me and a lot of others is different in 2026 then 2017, there are lots and lots of competitive battery and solar and inverter solutions now at radically reduced prices and that seems to just be accelerating, with sodium based systems and other tech coming. But that wouldn't have offset a real chunk of 9 years of carbon equiv release by me. The batteries got far more usage as part of a system for society then just me, and I still did ok even if it didn't perfectly maximize the individual dollar savings.

>They could at least let you actively decide if you want to allow it to be drawn down and to what extent; some sort of latitude. As it is, for them it's money for nothing.

If you BYOB you do get that choice, though obviously if you let them take less they pay less. But it's not money for nothing, just a weighing of risk/benefit.

>That being said, the article says that they're starting to install them for free.

The battery cost per kWh has fallen enough and I think they've gotten comfortable enough with the landscape shift that I can see that making sense now, not early adopter territory anymore. The utility is also in a position to realize benefits like having a bit more leeway in how they dispatch linemen for repairs, if they know someone is covered for 20 hours and it's currently 15 below zero with whiteout conditions that'll clear in 2 hours maybe it's worth something to be able to not have that be an emergency (or instead to direct emergency efforts to someone else who isn't covered).

>Thanks for sharing your experience.

I'm glad it's come up on HN. It's one of the few real rays of hope I find in all this, that despite failure of collective action it's just getting so good that the economics and politics are tilting anyway. Won't be fast enough to avoid a lot of bad effects, but it can always get worse so the faster the better.

>I'd feel better about this if they weren't charging people thousands for the batteries. As it is, this looks like a scam by utility companies to force their costs onto consumers and charge them for it on top of that. People should be being paid by the utility for storing, hosting, and allowing access to the power company's distributed infrastructure.

I participated in this program early on (currently on year 8 or 9) and I don't think you're giving a fair characterization. First, the batteries took the place of a generator, and have reliable protected my buildings from power outages since. Part of the program is that in case of storm warnings or other risk it actually switches out from the VPP for the duration to protect you instead. So there's direct value to having them, particularly in a rural area of a rural state, regardless of any other money. Having a sizable generator isn't free, not just in terms of purchase but in terms of

Second, the utility did in fact pay with a pretty massive discount (around $5-6k per battery at the time IIRC). The amount they were willing to pay wasn't enough to completely cancel out the battery cost back then, but it was like 70-80% of the cost. And in general looking at all the various VPP programs in the region utilities remain very much willing to pay you per kWh, whether it's a lease or BYOB.

There are multiple ways to make a battery work for you in terms of ROI, and the math has changed over the years as various component costs have changed as well as being individual to each person's situation in terms of their own usage patterns and generation. But I don't think this was a scam at all, it was a genuine win/win even before getting into softer factors like reducing usage of fossil fuel peaker plants that a lot of us do really care about. In an ideal world neutralizing that carbon pollution would all just be built into pricing so the market could better sort it out, but as it stands I don't feel bad about supporting a shift to some extent too. And even though I'm probably going to just buy my own batteries next time around due to other changes, I'd certainly consider contributing to a VPP again depending. It's been a positive experience.

>The utility company advertises this as a means to prevent power outages (which if they were doing their job in the first place should be extremely rare occurrences)

This is just really hard in some parts of New England given the history of grid development (we have a lot of really weird legacy layouts), weather, trees, population density, and lack of resources. If you're at the end of a quarter to a half mile driveway in the forest up a steep mountain dirt road and aren't able to bury the lines then it can be tough in storms. Plus other weirdness, last year a pole came down and it turns out bears had been using it as a scratching post and just ripped through the entire thing. Was actually pretty cool but also a power outage.

>but the fine print makes it clear that homeowners should not assume that they will have any access to the power that battery holds in the event of a power outage or at any other time.*

In all these years it's never once been an issue though. And I don't consider that "fine print" but obvious: if you're participating in a VPP at all, then obviously there will be times when your battery has been drawn down. That's the deal duh. And with the best will in the world they can't predict things like some drunk driver taking out a pole and causing an outage (this happened again not that long ago). It's not impossible that there could be the bad luck of that happening right when the battery happened to be down to a low level. That's the risk. But they do pay you for it. And almost any way you'd make batteries pay beyond power protection entails some risk or else some cost too, like if you want to rate-shift so that you only pay the lowest night time energy rate by charging then and then running off your batteries during the day, then you'll of course be at risk of lower remaining storage if there's then a grid failure too when you were expecting to charge back up again. You can spend money on that risk in turn, but there's no free lunch here.

>Ah, I see you're very confused.

Nah, that'd be you, as well as a very insufferable asshole.

>The question of whether "portable Starlink" (the aviation/maritime++ category we're talking about) justifies Starship's existence is whether the marginal increase in payload capacity or efficiency of Starship over Falcon produces a marginal increase in "portable Starlink" profit that's multiples beyond the amortized development cost and the launch costs of Starship.

And it clearly does, as I showed you. It's not even close, they're constrained on capabilities not demand right now. Starship total dev cost has been about $15 billion. Access to even a tiny piece of the global cellular market justifies that.

>Given that Starlink's entire enterprise is probably loss-making if it had to pay for its own launch capacity (it currently pays SpaceX Space $0 and is accounted for just in hardware depreciation, so frontloads profit and all the costs are incurred in coming years)... the answer is almost certainly no.

Speaking of "lmao", now you're resorting to make believe.

>And for what it's worth

Nothing, in your case. I'm also being kind to you and only talking about the fundamental thing it does that fiber can never do, vs your hilarious suggestion that fiber will rollout worldwide to everyone on the planet in or even in the US in the foreseeable future. I don't think the US has even reached 50% fiber coverage yet.

>The market for airlines, ships, drones, and satellites is - quite obviously - nowhere near large enough to justify Starship lmao

The only thing that's "quite obvious" is that you're not merely incredibly, confidently ignorant, you're also so deeply uncurious you can't even be bothered to take 30 seconds to check your priors. Starlink's present annual revenue is $11.3 billion with $4.4 billion in income on that. The total global civil aviation (commercial airline) fleet size is over forty thousand aircraft [0]. Expand that to general aviation including business jets etc and it grows to something like half a million. Starlink actually publishes their general aviation plan pricing [1], which for CA is going to be one of the top two plans that don't have data limits and thus $12500 or $20000 per aircraft. From what I can find international flights account for something like 20-30% of all flights, and maybe 5-10% are intercontinental. But plans are per aircraft per month, and plenty of airliners use the same plane to fly across a continent and then also fly intercontiental, which would still need the highest plan. So using a 90/10 split that'd be an average of $13500/plane, for a TAM of $6.7 billion per year just for CA and maybe another $1-4 billion for GA (which is a lot more complicated to reason about). And the profit margins there are going to be high.

So JUST aviation, not even touching on maritime or everything else mobile, has the potential at present market size to approach the entire current revenue of Starlink by itself. And they have barely even gotten started with cellular, or doing other stuff like Earth sensing with the sats that bigger, higher power birds makes more feasible.

You claim it's "quite obvious" mobile applications don't justify Starlink. It's not any such thing.

>80% of the Starlink subscriber base is fixed points and that will grow.

You need a lot more than 5x the residential plans at $55/month to approach $10-20k/month. Of course, some of those fixed points are business/enterprise customers on higher priced plans, but those customers are likely to be using Starlink already (as we are) as part of a redundancy plan alongside fiber, so your original argument about spreading fiber is perfectly irrelevant to those users anyway.

----

0: https://statbase.org/datasets/air-rail-and-water-transportat...

1: https://starlink.com/support/article/78b0428b-4546-0b7f-ea45...

>Selling sub-fiber Internet access into a globe increasingly covered in fiber is a silly long-term value proposition.

Wow, that's so amazing estaerum, you've figured out how to get photonic-bandgap (hollow core) fiber to transoceanic airlines and ships, as well as drones, and satellites in orbit!? Would you mind sharing any hints on this great breakthrough you've made?

...or did you just sorta somehow completely ignore the whole "terminals can be mobile" aspect of Starlink, as well as latency of free space optical vs conventional fiber?

>>Payload is 26 starlink v3 satellites.

>F9 fits how many?

Zero. Starlink v3 is too big for the F9 payload fairing. It's not just a matter of mass, the diameter and overall volume is important as well. In terms of performance, last I read they're supposed to add 1 Tbps of capacity each, so assuming they all work the first time all 26 would be around 10x the network addition of a full F9 v2 Mini launch. But the larger antennas would have other advantages beyond sheer bandwidth, and they'll be able to start getting more serious about direct to cell.

If making a breaking change to the format of the file, why in root's name would neovim not just make its own new file!? Import the vim version if that's desired into persistent-undo.neovim and then just go from there. I don't understand their choice here at all nor why you're acting like this is complicated or there was some need for them to reuse the exact same file as vim?

One thing I haven't seen tried in any of these things floating around (I'm still on macOS 15) that is the first thing I'd test after deletion is to stick a locked dummy file in there of the same name and see if that interferes with redownloads without any of the other mess. That's a classic simple hack. Ie, after deletion just a quick

  # touch com_apple_MobileAsset_UAF_FM_GenerativeModels
  # chflags schg com_apple_MobileAsset_UAF_FM_GenerativeModels

Then reenable SIP (or not). While maybe Apple stuck in some extra smarts in their download logic, and a full system update I think nowadays just blows everything away and replaces it, I've found in practice developers (not unreasonably) tend not to consider non-trivially-removable files appearing "where they're not supposed to be" and build a path for that. Granted, possible the process just ends up spinning trying to redownload over and over again or something but would be an easy thing to test.

>Is there any difference between US citizens and visitors?

Yes. US citizens have an absolute right of return to the US (at a land border anyway, they can be stopped from boarding a flight to the US while physically in another country). If there's an active warrant for arrest or they commit a crime right there or the like they can be arrested, but the process at that point plays out the same as an arrest anywhere in the country with the same standards. Property can be screened and denied, or potentially seized, but the person can than challenge that and it must be returned unless there is reason. This significantly changes the math as far as practical inconvenience to refusal to cooperate, though I don't want to downplay how much it could suck for most people to have expensive stuff taken for even a short period of time. But they can't keep someone from getting home and, in turn, back to financial, legal, political, and social support networks which can back them from there.

Visitors on the other hand have no right to entry at all and can be denied for any legal reason (which in practice amounts to near anything). They can be banned from future entry as well for a period of time or indefinitely. So they face different (and greater) pressure.

>In my home country I can just deny getting my devices searched. They might be allowed to seize and seal them, awaiting a court order for searching the device. Which I could appeal.

This sounds roughly the same as America then, depending on specifics. Here LEAs may not unfortunately need a court order to search the devices of an American "as best they can", but they can't compel cooperation either (and in fact generally cannot get a court order for that at all outside of a narrow exception due to the 5th Amendment). So if a device isn't encrypted, or if it is but they're able to break into it, or if (as in this case) the person in question simply goes ahead and unlocks it for them then that's at least for now allowed (hopefully SCOTUS overrules the 2C), but they can't legally force password entry.

>Basically the same process as anywhere else in the country, international borders are not some special place that gives the police superpowers.

You don't mention your country (and that's fine!) but I don't think there is a single nation anywhere that doesn't have "police superpowers" at international borders. It's sorta a core part and parcel with the basic idea of a "nation" at all, that it can if it wishes regulate its people/goods exchange with the rest of the world. When you travel within a typical free-ish country you can just stop at a store in town and buy stuff and then take it home and the police can't investigate it and demand receipts and that you pay additional taxes or just outright seize it or make you take it back. Right? That's just, normal, within a single polity everything is already under the same rules.

But a border between independent polities by definition means that there could be goods legal in one but illegal in the other, or that are subject to different standards, or different safety considerations, or where there is disagreement on whether/how externalities are accounted for, or just simply taxed differently for pure revenue purposes. In turn, what country doesn't give themselves the right to regulate import of physical stuff, even if internally there is total freedom of movement and goods? Genuinely curious?

The argument here though is that this isn't about regulation of imports, but a criminal investigation. And I agree with legal scholars like Orin Kerr that the Second Circuit got this one wrong. This was not an import power thing, trying to stop contraband or levy legal import taxes, this was a criminal case, and I think that should always be protected by the 4A.

>No statute defines "clean room RE" and there's basically no relevant litigation establishing case law.

You seem confused here? "Clean Room RE" is simply a descriptive result of copyright law in the US, and is well established. In the US there is no "sweat of the brow doctrine", pure facts simply cannot be copyrighted at all, nor underlying methods/ideas (that's patents). And as a direct result of the latter, again unlike patents, if two people truly independently write the same thing, both get separate copyright.

"Clean room reverse engineering" is just applying that to make any legal fight much cheaper or discourage it from every being bothered with in the first place. You have an RE "dirty" team that goes through copyrighted software and makes a specification that is purely factual, ie, "function 1 takes (int16)X input and does equation ABC on it, function 2 takes (long)X & (long)Y inputs and does LMN" etc. A factual/math spec like that cannot be copyrighted, so it breaks any derivation chain. They then give that, and only that with no other communications, to the clean team. If someone with no other exposure to the software being RE'd uses that spec to write a new piece of software themselves, then by definition the result cannot have any copyright of the original. It's a brand new work based off a list of uncopyrightable facts & math/ideas (though worth noting it could still get tripped up by abomination that is software patents).

There are other ways to argue against copyright infringement successfully, but they're much more subjective, which legally speaking reads "expensive, uncertain". CRRE simply trades that for two clear binary questions: was the spec copyrightable, and did the people writing a new piece of software from that spec have any previous exposure to the original? If the answers to that are no, then all arguments about function names being similar or whatever are no longer relevant.

On the subject of LLMs, one curious twist is that proprietary software might have less effective protection then open source depending on how it all goes. A coding LLM almost certain trained on all open source software available on the web. So there's at least some argument it's tainted. But proprietary software is proprietary. If the LLM has never had any of the source code in its training input, then isn't it clean in terms of producing anything derivative of that? That'll be kinda interesting, and might leave some companies with a bit of a conundrum (or I guess pushing the patent side even harder, but that has a much more sane 20 year expiration date vs copyright).

>On the other hand, disabling WebGPU is offering entropy for fingerprinting, too. A vanishingly small % of users will have done so.

I think near any anti-fingerprinting efforts though presume some floor level of system security and stability. If some particular hardware exposure feature lets attackers run arbitrary low level timing and hardware testing code or crash the system or break the sandbox the game is likely over for most people.

An extra bit of entropy isn't meaningless sure, but at some point there should be some weighing of absolute attack surface against it right? Some features just seem inherently anti-privacy/anti-security and one might just have to try to deal with that via other approaches.

While I'm sure it has its uses, particularly if someone really does want to game or do complex computational stuff purely within a web browser, I'll admit I've grown pretty cautious/tired around the ever increasing amount of hardware attack surface area the browser vendors seem to be rushing to expose as Google in particular appears determined to try to be the "operating system on the operating system" as much as it can. In this particular case it made me realize I'd awhile ago set dom.webgpu.enabled and pdfjs.enableWebGPU to false in Firefox, same as I disabled WebGL. Kinda figured if I ever saw something ultra cool I could enable it just that one time but so far I haven't. Semi-related, reviewing the available settings now for the first time in a bit I notice they have a dom.webgpu.blocked-domains with the sole entries being "easyeda.com,*.easyeda.com", I wonder what that's about?