click170

Some of the obstacles really hit you when your working with different systems, if you connect the same systems then just mirror the config but when each end uses different terminology it can get confusing unless you know what you're doing. I don't think I'd agree that it's extremely difficult but it's nontrivial sometimes.

Not if I can spoof my IP6 address as easily as I can spoof an IP4 one, nope.

Merely because they're big enough to throw their clout around, which could be a good thing or bad thing depending on how you view it.

Could also be Apple, or Amazon, or maybe Netflix. Any large enough company really.

I feel the same way, but I worry that ISPs won't ever change unless they're forced to. I'm starting to wonder if Google should just stop accepting (or start delaying?) traffic to or from ISPs that allow spoofed traffic. I mean it doesn't feel hard to test.

On the one hand I already avoid Google because they're getting uncomfortably large, but on the other hand I feel like it's going to take a company of Google's size to take a stand, or regulatory changes, before anything will change for the better here.

It worked for improving the SSL situation and for distrusting bad CAs, didn't it? Non-rhetorical question, it feels like it did to me.

This is exactly why I don't bother with forums controlled by the company I wish to raise a grievance about. Just go air your complaint on Reddit or something they don't control, it's not worth your time complaining to their forums.

That's pretty disingenuous though, given that FB and Google both track you across the net whether you have an account with them or not. Logging out of your account doesn't stop them or increase the difficulty of them tracking you, or associating that trail with you.

This is really cool and reminds me a bit of Mandos which does full disk encryption on headless servers using a network host.

The Readme didn't mention, can this be configured to SMS me when an encryption key is handed out?

> The Sansa line at one point had (or still has) the same audio chip as the iPod (Classic), is cheaper, and is super well reviewed. I think people interested in dedicated players have moved onto that.

This looks promising on the face of it but is missing a key killer-feature IMO. The reason I still use an iPod for my MP3s is for a specific feature in iTunes that I've not yet found elsewhere, I forget the name they use but I call them dynamic playlists.

Most of my playlists generate themselves based on DateAdded, LastPlayed, LastSkipped, Rating, Tags and other attributes. When I add a song I give it some tags and sync my iPod, and then it will over time and after a few syncs, end up in other playlists based on how often I play it and what rating I give it. It's a feature that I very much enjoy, and feels like a significant step up from manually managing playlists. I wish I had the same for my Movie library.

I've seriously been considering building my own gizmo with a Raspberry pi, an LCD screen and some scripts but that's rather unappealing aesthetically.

Has anyone got an equivalent to dynamic libraries + mp3 players working without iTunes? The crux seems to be that the mp3 player needs to keep a log of what's played and when and needs to support ratings, even if the player itself doesn't update the playlists until it's synced. I'm not even huge on sound quality or big on Apple products, it's just the features I like I can't find elsewhere.

Maybe they can reinvest some of that money and figure out how to not spam me for things I've already pre-ordered from Amazon.

Case in point, Super Mario Odyssey. Preordered from Amazon, and they've been sending me nonstop emails to try and sell me additional copies ever since.

At least their marketing emails tend to come from a different source from tracking notification emails so you can filter them with ease.

I agree with your intention, but I worry about the consequences: One thing worse than a group of companies controlling credit ratings is one company having a monopoly on controlling credit ratings and being "too big to fail".

What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? More credit rating companies equals more competition but greater attack surface and chance of breach, but fewer companies approaches a monopoly situation which isn't good for consumers either. This feels like a lose-lose...

To add to that, the desktop site works* with javascript disabled, is faster that way, and has much fewer ads, but the mobile site doesn't even load under that condition.

Edit: * - works in a read-only sense, you have to turn JS on to comment or expand comments.

First off this is partly a self fullfilling prophecy: I'm increasingly less likely to buy one the longer it takes them to update it.

Also, they've effectively pushed me to other vendors for small form factor PC's now. I needed a small form factor HTPC and was ready to just casually buy a Mini, until I saw they hadnt updated it in years. I switched to a smaller and cheaper chromebox which I put Linux on, and I won't be going back to Mac minis now because I found a better cheaper solution.

On the on hand, thanks apple, on the other theyre doing it to themselves from my perspective.

This whole thing seems to stem from the authors inability to reproduce and understand the problem.

Has anyone submitted a test case demonstrating the problem? I don't see one linked in the comments. It may also help to explain how you deploy and why you do it that way, not everyone does this as their day job so some perspective can be enlightening.

Closing an issue like this that is ostensibly a problem for a lot of people and projects isn't good etiquette. At the same time, Foss authors dont owe us or anyone else anything. The least we can do is help them reproduce the issue when they have trouble doing it themselves. Seems like failures on both sides here to me.

Edit: I also don't want to criticize the author for not pushing a patch they don't understand. I wouldnt merge a patch if I didn't understand the problem it was solving, but I would ask for details and a test case to understand it better instead of closing the ticket.

I'm not arguing with your logic, but I the user searched for and found/installed the app/service, it's disappointing and disheartening to not be trusted to choose my own preferences and explore the options in said app/service.

Have you seen these examples yet? It's not the exact same but maybe you can use it to the same effect?

https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Maps

My understanding is that iptables and nftables are both user interfaces to configure rule-sets in the NetFilter code, though I think that glosses over some important bits.

I use and recommend nftables, and while it's very usable I also think it's important to acknowledge that nftables is not yet at full feature parity with iptables.

More details can be found here:

- https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Supported_...

- https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/List_of_up...

All the basics are there and I'm already using it for my home firewall so don't get the wrong idea, but if you use any of the more interesting iptables features you might want to test those features out in nft before committing yourself to it. Your kernel version is key.

Also, let me extend a Thank You to everyone who's worked to make nftables a reality! My favorite parts are atomic ruleset replacement and the ability to do 'log and drop' in one rule.

Edit: Added link to actual feature comparison

> but I thought hopefully an article that gets a few thousand readers might do more financial damage

Once upon a time I shared this sentiment about PayPal, but history has shown me that people continue using them anyway. I mean, every person I talk to has personally experienced a PayPal horror story or knows someone who has experienced one first-hand, and they continue using PayPal anyway. Some feel they don't have a choice, others just don't care, but I no longer feel like making noise about the PayPal horror stories is going to have any impact on them, so I encourage you to contact the ombudsman/FCA regardless.

> The recent attack uses special techniques to exploit weaknesses in the SHA-1 algorithm that find a collision in much less time. These techniques leave a pattern in the bytes which can be detected when computing the SHA-1 of either half of a colliding pair.

> GitHub.com now performs this detection for each SHA-1 it computes, and aborts the operation if there is evidence that the object is half of a colliding pair.

Isn't it possible for a valid non-colliding object or commit to contain that pattern as well? It sounds like eventually, though possibly in the far distant future, someone will be unable to push a commit to Github because it matches the pattern but doesn't contain colliding objects.

Does anyone know what the pattern is they're looking for? I'm curious now.

> The adtech industry isn't full of idiots, it's thousands of people like you and me.

> The advertisers who hold all the money could do something by only spending it on good vendors - but who's going to tell them that?

I guess I always figured (hoped?) that the folks like you and I, but in that industry, would speak up to the folks buying the ads, but you're right: Us folks aren't the ones selling the ad campaigns to the folks with the money.

Vendors can't be that aloof though.. can they? Surely they're aware of the impact that poor advertising campaigns can have on their brand? Are you seeing any hints of that?

> Also the most annoying ads are the ones that show the most "engagement" - precisely because they are annoying.

From what you've seen, would you say that despite the growing prevalence of adblockers, these types of "engaging" adverts are still the most profitable today?

I mean, I figured one of the reasons ad companies were getting so vocal about adblockers lately is that it was starting to impact their bottom line. Perhaps just not enough to spur real change yet.

Do you think ad companies will change their ways when adblocking starts to have a more significant impact on them financially, or do you see them as too stuck in their ways, perhaps needing to be unseated by startups who aren't afraid to push respectable advertising and raise the bar?

One of my takeaways from watching the documentary "Art & Copy" was that advertising can be respectable and engaging without being intrusive and in your face, but I can't think of very many recent examples of that. A diminishing art form perhaps.

I don't agree that this is a step backwards, but I certainly do agree that this is not a step forward.

Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk.

I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem.

We almost need an advertising "intervention"... If the creation and rapid adoption of adblocking software isn't the embodiment of that though, I don't know what is.

There's something Ive been curious about, and as one of the companies on that committee I wonder what your thoughts are on this.

I honestly expected advertising industry folks to recognize the adblock problem and to take meaningful action long before the prevalence of adblocking tech got to this stage of such common household use. Instead, it feels like they've doubled down on the obnoxious ads.

I figured they'd realize that abusive ads will encourage ad-avoidance behaviors, but they seem totally oblivious to the root cause of the problem.

There's that soundbite about a man's salary depending on his not understanding the problem, but that feels like a gross oversimplification of this issue.

Can anyone with the ad companies offer any insight into the thought processes at play wrt adblock?

Is there thought being given to expose such an option to the end user at additional cost?

Say if I wanted to make sure my data was stored in 2 regions, and was OK with a slight increase in cost to accomplish that.

Excellent read, thank you for sharing!

Just curious, was there any consideration given to existing storage solutions like Ceph when you were evaluating writing your own erasure encoding system?

It seems like it may have been a potential good fit at one point in time, and might have made it easier to expose an S3-like API if you wanted to down the road.

BBC's Horizon has a really good episode about checklists and how they're used to prevent mistakes in hospitals, and how they're being adopted in other environments in light of that success. It's called How To Avoid Mistakes In Surgery for the interested.

Already fixed in Debian, probably fixed in most other distros as well considering it was posted Dec 8th.

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-9919

This.

This bit stood out to me (emphasis mine):

> Uber says employees don't receive across-the-board access to customer data and there are several controls in place to ensure that employees only access that data for work purposes.

The choice of the word "control" in this context I think gives away a little bit here, it's auditor-speak.

This word does not always mean to an auditor what it means to you or I. Having a written policy that says "Don't access X unless it's required for your job" and keeping access logs can satisfy a "control" from an auditor's perspective, depending on the certification.

That's better than nothing, but back to your point, you're right that it doesn't prevent insider access. Which isn't something I worry about normally...

Edit: Typo

> Am I wrong to feel slighted when far less capable people have been promoted to leadership positions?

Does your boss know you're interested in a leadership role?

It sounds like you should have a 1 to 1 chat with your boss to express an interest in leadership roles and to ask what you can do in their eyes to demonstrate that readiness.

I would also ask yourself what specifically makes the other person less capable? Speaking personally, I've found that sometimes someone will be promoted due to better soft-skills and/or project management even though their technical skills may be below their peers IMO, which in hindsight can - but not always does - make sense for a management role.

It could be as simple as a misunderstanding where your boss thinks you're more interested in technical-path career advancement instead of a management-path career advancement. Since you mentioned that your boss is trying to acknowledge your work by inviting you out hobnobbing with big-wigs, this seems plausible.

> By baking it into the OS, Apple ensures that anyone with an iDevice benefits from it.

But only people with iDevices benefit from it. I prefer Signal to iMessage because iMessage is iOS only, and I'm disappointed with Google for not including an iMessage equivalent with secure messaging by default.

> Compare that to having to download an app that may change depending on possible compromises.

If you mean what I think you mean, using iMessage will not save you/them from this any more than using Signal would, the only benefit to iMessage is that it's already installed on iDevices when you buy them and has secure-messaging enabled by default.

Which is still a step above Android currently - which has no default-installed secure messaging app at all.

I'm lookin at you Google!

I honestly believe people working for three letter agencies don't see this as a distinction. They're both "because terrorism" and technically, that's correct.

You and I can probably agree that one of them is overreach, but I don't trust that they have internal mechanisms to discourage overreach - that would be counter to their interests.

Edit: Clarification