GhettoMaestro

Ok, and? That’s not a sin or anything.

For what it’s worth there is definitely a market for this stuff. Starlink, hello?

You don’t get to dictate free human behavior. It’s so frustrating to see this trend on HN.

People have a right to build private internet infrastructure and sell it at a premium. Full stop. No qualifications.

Your opinion is naive and short-sighted.

Who cares, really? I use Makefiles for everything from eliminating 8284738 random bash scripts to orchestrating global infrastructure deployments with Terraform in a docker container.

None of my above fits your “correct” view of make. But it works fine and has for years.

Be careful with that logic: While prefixes are supposed to be regionally-allocated, they can and DO move around occasionally. You could find yourself in a situation where you are referencing outdated geolocation information, resulting in a potential violation of GDPR.

I always feel a need to state this to folks who are not aware of geolocation and ip addresses: Geolocation based on IP is very unreliable and should be used only for soft-analytics at best.

Example: It is not fit for security postures (in theory). One can dump all the CURRENT v4 routes being advertised out of China and block them via blackholes/firewalls/etc. However immediately after that a rogue operator could hijack a non-China affiliated prefix, use it for badness, and then release the hijacked prefix.

Most Geolocation services that are static (point in time) will not detect the above scenario. BGP-based monitoring services will, but that's a step up $$$ wise.

Just a word of warning: Stuffing X inside a TCP wrapper can get nasty fast... VPNe are UDP for a reason.

Some stuff gets pretty advanced. Check out the M134D. Sure it’s 1960’s tech, but it’s still amazing.

There is a massive uptick in online child pornography. For what it is worth, it appears to be hitting epidemic levels. I have no reason to think this is a US-only problem.

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...

> Can you point at immoral dictatorial laws in Germany which do not exist in USA?

He mentioned track record - as in a reference to the past. Does the Nuremberg Laws ring any bells for you?

As a network person thank you for bootstrapping IPv6 where you can. Most folks still don’t care :-(.

> That said, you're going to hurt a lot of non-china multinationals who operate there.

Not my problem. Figure out a better way than getting in bed with fascist countries and then complaining when the inevitable door swings shut due to rightful backlash.

Annoyed at being on call: How dare they do their expected responsibilities in exchange for pay. The nerve of them.

It is possible: De-peer AS4134 (China Telecom) and reject all of their routes. They are the only international ISP that lands into mainland China. They are extensively peered around the world.

I see your point. But those platforms (while flawed) are operating legally, under their own volition, without direction from the United States Government.

If the USG were to order Twitter to take down X person's tweets because it hurt someone's feelers, that would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

Additionally we have a strong legal precedent of not permitting "compelled speech". Plainly put, they can't force you to label your own Facebook posts with your opponents claims as well.

I am totally on your side that these few companies are in far too much control. But they aren't the USG, or compelled to block/force-speech on their behalf.

It won’t happen. It is incompatible with the first amendment. Thank god we baked that shit in instead of just passing a law to that effect.

Great idea. I am going to reuse that analogy.

I'm having trouble understanding why the randomly sprayed bits from the attacker to the client are even accepted at all at the crypto boundary. Shouldn't it hard-fail (not decrypt) due to an invalid key?

Ya - the NSA calls this "LINK MASKING". Makes a communication channel look busy 100% of the time at at predefined bit rate. Pretty much worthless to traffic analysis, at the cost of burning extra bits on the wire when not actually sending traffic. Mostly only used in Military applications, and specifically where you think an advanced adversary is going to do things like traffic analysis, etc.

> They're arguing that it's not designed well because it should accommodate recovering parts from phones that were knowingly disposed of without the owner releasing the activation lock first.

> As parent comment points out, this could be a simple matter of the refurbisher requesting a release of the lock, sending a request through Apple, and Apple requesting permission of the phone's owner via their account. If the phone was stolen, they click no. If the phone was given for recycling and has parts that can still be used, they click yes.

Is that even possible? (Legitimately curious) My understanding is in the current design certain expensive things, like the SoC+Security-Enclave are certed/secure-booted, and I imagine other parts are just generic / "off the shelf" plug in and power up and go.

If it is possible to allow more component level re-use without violating the security goal (deter theft), I'm all for it. The more I think about this I honestly think this is active design decision by Apple to avoid a number of long tail permutations they would otherwise need to test and support.

> The article pretty well lays out why this doesn't work. We're talking about recyclers here. The people sending in these devices have literally thrown them away into a trash bin. There's no return address.

It sounds like the system works as designed. Steal a locked-iPhone? Congrats, you just stole a worthless brick. Please illustrate to me how this mechanism "doesn't work" when it seems to defeat 99%+ of folks from re-selling the illegitimately-obtained device for any meaningful amount of money, contrasted to its worth in an unlocked state.

Exactly. This brew-ha-ha is nothing. This is an anti-theft feature. Hard to argue against features designed to reduce the potential for someone to target it for theft.

As someone who has had both a smartphone and a laptop stolen, I would have loved to know that aside from my frustration with the insurance company that the thief walked away with 2 worthless bricks.

And no, right to repair should not ban user-initiated device activation locks.

The people you mentioned in the US went through a judicial proceeding which resulted in their imprisonment. We can debate the merits (or lack therefore) of the laws broken which resulted in their imprisonment, but the point is there was a process and a review in place before said people were sent off to prison.

Contrast that situation to China. China has over 1 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps for non-criminal, political reasons. Most (if not all) of the said Uyghur people imprisoned were given no judicial review, and have no access to legal counsel.

God damn I hate the whataboutism on HN I see with regards to China - it is really rampant. It may shatter some folks' liberal sentiments but the US really is not the worst country on the block (planet), by a long-long margin.

I hate Forbes.com articles with a burning hate in my heart. The ads. Oh my god - stop it!

Nah most irc networks masquerade the client ip in the whois to prevent ddos.

My bad - I read that too fast. Apologies.

You’re tone deaf. CA is in the midst of their worst homeless crisis ever. Density is a long ways behind my concerns for the middle-class homeless whom have been priced out of any meaningful housing options.

> Eventually people will realise they don't need more speed, and the focus will switch to things like power effeciency and weight. Just like laptops.

Have you been in a coma for 5 years? That has already happened.

It was not autonomous.

No... that's pure hyperbole.

But 10x faster (or capable) and 2x the cost? That's not outrageous. BTW that's where we currently are.

Laser and radar jammers do exist and is usually targeted at high end car folks. It’s not legal obviously.