I personally hate CGNAT, but I cannot deny that nowadays, the overwhelmingly vast majority of customers most likely does not care (and much less know) that they are behind CGNAT, so this is valid.
Come to think of it, for my use cases, I would probably be fine to be behind IPv4 NAT as long as I also have an un-NATted IPv6 prefix. But a big part of the question here of course is whether IPv6 adoption is worthwhile...
For your example, shouldn't you either present two "private" IP addresses, in which case you'd replace the IPv6 address in your example with what is likely to be an autoconfigured link-local address (though any ULA address would be valid as well),
OR present the two IP addresses that the targets would be visible as from the outside, in which case you'd replace the IPv4 address with the "public" address that 192.168.0.1 NATs to, going outbound?
Then, the stated difference is much less stark: In the first case, you'd have a local IPv6 address that's about as useless as the local IPv4 address (except that it's much more likely to be unique, but you still wouldn't know how to reach it). In the second case, unless your target is behind some massive IPv4 NAT (carrier-grade NAT probably), you'd immediately know how to route to them as well.
But presenting a local IP for IPv4, and a global one for IPv6, strikes me as a bit unfair. It would be equally bogus to present the public IPv4 address and the autoconfigured link-local address for IPv6 and asking the same question.
I do concede that carrier-grade NAT shifts the outcome again here. But it comes with all the disadvantages that carrier-grade NAT comes with, i.e. the complete inability to receive any inbound connections without NAT piercing, and you could achieve the same by just doing carrier-grade NAT for IPv6 as well (only that I don't think we want that, just how we only want IPv4 CGNAT because we don't have many other options any more).
In these contexts - neither of the addresses was intended for internet consumption. A misconfigured firewall exposes you in the case of IPv6 routable addresses, and is less relevant in the case of IPv4; the ULA IPv6 address is roughly the same as an RFC 1918 address with it's lack of routing on the Internet.
The point I was (poorly) trying to make is that non-routability is sometimes an explicit design objective (See NERC-CIP guidance for whether you should route control traffic outside of substations), and that there is some consideration that should be made when deciding whether to use globally routable IPv6 addresses.
Mac address is absolutely safe in IPv4 world - the only info it gives is the network card manufacturer.
And people don't usually share "curl ipinfo.io" output unless they plan to share their external IP (unlike "ifconfig" output, which is one of the first things you want to share for any sort of networking problems)
Target #2 [IPv6] gives aways 90% of the game at attacking it (we even leak some device specific information, so you know precisely where it's weak points are)
You may not consider Mac address to he important, but the context of this conversation did bring it up. Of course they forgot the fact that most v6 addressing doesn't expose Mac addresses anymore.
Especially as if someone is able to capture ifconfig data, they can probably send a curl request to a malicious web server and expose the NAT IP as well.
Just because you can think of scenarios where the IPv4 setup doesn't make a different doesn't discount that there are scenarios where it does.
Someone being able to observer some state is a different model from someone being able to perform actions on the system and the former has many more realistic scenarios in addition to the ones of the latter.
I don’t know. Doctors nowadays (especially in the US, it seems to be less prevalent elsewhere) seem very quick at prescribing medication.
And while I don’t doubt that there are serious physiological conditions that warrant, even necessitate, medicating, my impression is that the first response to “depression” in general shouldn’t be medication.
I’ve been depressed in the past, in my 20s even severely. Clinically, you could say. But in the end, every one of those depressive episodes were because something was not right in my life.
Whether I acknowledged it or not, whether I even realized that there was a problem, once I figured the issues out and took the sometimes very painful and exhausting steps to sort them out, the depression faded away.
Over time, I’ve become better at introspection to figure out what’s really bugging me, and also in recognizing a budding early depression as warning signs.
As someone with treatment resistant depression, it is odd people are against medication. Medication is proven safe and effective for treating depression. Therapy and medication should be used immediately in conjunction because 1. therapy is most effective when paired with medication, and 2. depression is a vicious cycle. The longer someone spends depressed, the more likely they will spiral into deeper depression, isolation, unemployment, etc.
No one should delay any part of depression treatment.
Same for me. Its so odd having an illness, and taking medicine against that illness, and mostly reading an "universal truth" that the medication that helps you is bad someway. As you say, therapy but also getting a better sleep hygiene, better nutrition and exercise is so much easier with medicine.
> And while I don’t doubt that there are serious physiological conditions that warrant, even necessitate, medicating, my impression is that the first response to “depression” in general shouldn’t be medication.
It’s very well possible that you, and the person you answered to, are solidly part of the “needs medication” fraction. I do not believe that medication against depression is bad in general.
Agree that medication isn't necessarily the answer - mine was therapy not pills. But all of it is still medical assistance. And the medication helped me get started on the therapy, I'm not sure I could have got to a place where the therapy could have helped without it.
There’s little reason to avoid prescribing medication alongside other approaches. It’s not that meds are the only option or they should be reserved for the most severe cases, it’s people’s reactions are different and there’s no way to tell without trying them. For some people they really do work wonders and you simply don’t know ahead of time.
Not everyone has a support structure they can count on as they fall apart. So some people just need help to get through a rough period even if a solution isn’t long term viable. When a spouse dies being able to function for the next few months can mean keeping the roof over someone’s head.
> There’s little reason to avoid prescribing medication alongside other approaches.
There absolutely are downsides and risks. There is a reason the
SSRIs carry a "blackbox" warning for youths due to increased suicide risks. There's a reason they should only be used under supervision of a doctor and need to be tapered off of.
That is not to say they aren't useful and necessary for some/many people but they aren't and shouldn't be a catch-all treatment.
A very specific edge case: If you ever think you might want to become a pilot, even just to fly small airplanes, the FAA still considers ADHD, depression, social anxiety, and other conditions where you are prescribed medication, to be disqualifying. And this is a "have you ever in your life" question on the medical form. So if you're prescribed ADHD medicine, even as a child, I understand that while it's not impossible, you are going to have a major uphill battle if you ever want to fly airplanes.
Mm. I'm glad for you that you can just think about your problems harder and get better, but that's not the reality of it for most people with depression.
Meds don't magically make you happy and they don't magically get you out of fixing the problems in your life. They make it easier and therefore possible to do so. I'd describe it as the crane that lifts up the heavy weight enough for you to shuffle out.
If you can just think harder about your problems, by all means, do that. But there's zero virtue to rawdogging it when help is available, especially as this can easily lead to an isolation spiral and become deadly.
>I don’t know. Doctors nowadays (especially in the US, it seems to be less prevalent elsewhere) seem very quick at prescribing medication.
My experience from being a mental-health patient is that things take too much time. For me I struggled with how it seemed like that the society universally had agreed that medication for my condition is bad. Taking medicine doesn't mean that you cant threat your illness in other ways as well, in my experience taking medicine helps you to be able to take the changes you need in life.
As someone medicated I actually fully agree with you.
Depression is also a broad spectrum condition (much like autism). Years ago I watched this lecture by Sapolsky[0] and it really helped. Breaking down the different classifications is really helpful. The SSRIs always made me feel worse, and this (along with a lot of other research) helped make sense of it. A few years back I was diagnosed with ADHD and a psychologist friend encouraged me to give Adderall a try. It was the first time that medication "worked" and it really made a big difference in my life. The big reason why being that psychomotor retardation and anhedonia were my biggest symptoms. When coupled with an anxiety disorder it creates a strong negative feedback loop.
But here's the thing: medication isn't the cure. For me it alleviates (not eliminates) symptoms but at the end of the day it still requires work from me to ensure I create a positive feedback loop and don't let myself fall into that destructive loop. This is all stuff I had to learn on my own and through reading and seeking out friends with people who are more experts in the area. That's where I think our care system fails.
The best thing I can recommend to people is to be introspective. Each journey is personal, but whatever your issues are try to find the early warning signs. For me it can be little things like the dishes piling up or my desk getting messy (these seem you be common). Things like depression build up, so look for the signs. And most importantly, open up. This was the hardest for me and makes me feel demasculated and embarrassed much of the time. But I've also found it to help build stronger relationships with my partner and friends. That it helps open a door to communicate both ways. Maybe you open the door for you, but you also open a door many are too nervous to open themselves. It's worth the discomfort and gets easier with time. (Talking behind a handle is a great way to start too. So make alt accounts if you need to. That's how I started)
you took amphetamine and weren't depressed suddenly? in my experience, that lasts a bit, but give it another decade or so. it tends to bite in other ways.
Going to depend on your dosages. I try to stay low and will take breaks to help reduce dependency. I actually really dislike the feeling of a high dosage and it does have negative effects at that end.
Also remember that everyone reacts differently to things. SSRIs work great for some people, but not for me. So it's worth trying different classes of medicines too but also to make sure that when having more dangerous ones. I made sure close friends knew too
> were because something was not right in my life.
THIS! Thats the reason why I always refused to take any medication: Doctors said you could "try X or Y and in some days I should feel better" - while the problems where mainly because of problems at work or within relationship.
Why should I take medics if I have problems at work with bad colleagues? This logic never made sense to me.
And my 2ct: If this wouldnt be a hardcore capitalist society in which most people struggle despite the fact living in a rich country, possessing nothing and having no homeownership, then there would be near zero demand for any psy medics.
This article is a bit bizarre in what the author seems to have expected, or rather not expected.
The 64 Ultimate is, as far as I know, an FPGA-implementation of an original C64. It is, for most intents and purposes, a C64.
So why are they so surprised that the original peripherals, like floppy drives, can be attached to it? The only special thing required for that is likely a level shifter on board (as the FPGA will hardly be 5V). And moreover, what's special about CRTs that it's so surprising that they can be attached as well? The output is bog-standard composite or S-Video, you can attach anything to it, just like to the original C64...
It's more interesting that it has an added HDMI output, Ethernet, and Wifi.
This is actually pretty common. It's less obvious with Chinese or Japanese, as the input method there usually matches the transliteration based on how the word is spoken (romaji in Japanese, pinyin in Chinese), which of course does not look unusual.
For example, you wouldn't think twice about it if for the Japanese word for washing machine, you not only saw "洗濯機" (which is how it's written in Kanji), but also "sentakuki" or "sentakki" in the search results, because even to non-Japanese speakers it's pretty clear that that's probably the Japanese word for washing machine written with latin character transliteration, and pretty much exactly what you'd say.
With Korean, it looks more jarring, as the input method is apparently very different, and seems to map the keys for unrelated latin letters to Hangul letters? (I have no idea, I don't know anything about Hangul other than it's based on syllables, kind of like Hiragana/Katakana, and apparently very logical.)
> With Korean, it looks more jarring, as the input method is apparently very different, and seems to map the keys for unrelated latin letters to Hangul letters?
More or less, yes. Each Hangul character represents a syllable, and is composed of two or more components (jamo) representing individual phonemes (like vowels or consonants) which make up the syllable. The keys on a Korean keyboard are mapped to those jamo.
More specifically, since Korean syllables are of the form CV(C) where C is a consonant and V is a vowel, almost all Hangul keyboard layouts divide the entire keyboard into two or three sections (consonant-vowel or initial-medial-final). The standard KS X 5002 layout is the former, a "bipartite" method (두벌식), while I'm using one of the latter, "tripartite" methods (세벌식).
With Chinese you have 简拼 (jiǎnpīn) for your pinyin input, which lets you type only the initial Latin letters of a common phrase to complete the phrase.
For example, instead of typing “buzhidao” to get 不知道, you just type “bzd” and pick the top suggestion. Since all the phonetic endings are gone, it does look a little cryptic, but it means if you don’t have a pinyin keyboard, you can still type something fast that is highly correlated with your actual phrase.
For example when you’re searching a movie title on your SmartTV; teenage mutant ninja turtles (similarly abbreviated tmnt) becomes rzsg; some Chinese search tools will pick up on this; whether through statistics, fuzzy matching or specific 简拼 (jiǎnpīn) support, I don’t know.
Kana input exists in japanese and reuses each letter of the keyboard to mean a different kana. So you could have a similar confusion in japanese. I believe many older people use it.
I haven't really used Windows for anything serious in more than 20 years (and I recently had to mess with Windows 11 and it was terrible), but I'm not sure you'd be very happy going back to Windows 3.1.
It was a 16 bit system (it could run in "Enhanced Mode" which involves 32 bit protected mode, but in reality Windows itself, and the applications, were still 16 bit).
That means the resource constraints were very real. Even if you had a lot of actual memory in your machine, the memory that was actually available for "general purpose" was effectively a few hundred kilobytes. There was also the notion of finite (and very generically-named) "system resources", and you could see in the "About" box how many percent of those you had free. Once they were gone, you were in trouble:
USER.EXE and GDI.EXE each have a data segment (that is, heap) limited to 64K. The 8086/80286 platform architecture imposes this 64K limit. Program Manager checks the percentage of free heap space for both USER.EXE and GDI.EXE. It then reports the smaller of the two percentages.[1]
All applications ran in the same address space. A broken application meant a total crash at best, subtle data corruption at worst. Multitasking was also cooperative, so apps could hold up other apps indefinitely, or just hang the entire system.
Since it was not based on paging, to accommodate the very limited memory, entire segments could be swapped out, or even relocated, within the address space. As a programmer, that meant dealing with stuff like "locking pointers" so Windows wouldn't move your data segment under you. As a user, that could mean general slowness.
It was firmly based on DOS. So many problems that you had in DOS, drivers or whatnot, would exist in Windows as well.
There were better systems at the time that you could wish yourself back to, some number of them based on UNIX in some way or other.
But Windows 3.11 had really pretty icons. The prettiest, in my mind.
It looks like X was deliberately chosen to denote succession of W, not clashing with it:
"The name X derives from the lineage of the system. At Stanford University, Paul Asente and Brian Reid had begun work on the W window system [3] as an alternative to VGTS [13, 221 for the V system [5]. [...] We acquired a UNIX-based version of W for the VSlOO (with synchronous communication over TCP[24] produced by Asente and Chris Kent at Digital’s Western Research Laboratory. [...] It was also clear that, although synchronous communication was perhaps acceptable in the V system (owing to very fast networking primitives), it was completely inadequate in most other operating environments. X is our “reaction” to W."
I think I sort of meant the same thing, but my wording might have been unclear. Essentially, there already was a W, and they were making something new, so they picked X.
At this point we should make "your" serve dual duty as an official alt spelling of you're and be done with it... let context determine which "your" it is
> I couldn't for the life of me tell you what dd stands for.
Data(set) Definition. But that name does not make any sense whatsoever by itself in this context, neither for the tool (it hardly "defines" anything), nor for UNIX in general (there are no "datasets" in UNIX).
Instead, it's specifically a reference to the DD statement in the JCL, the job control language, of many of IBM's mainframe operating systems of yore (let's not get into the specifics of which ones, because that's a whole other can of complexity).
And even then the relation between the DD statement and the dd command in UNIX is rather tenuous. To simplify a lot, DD in JCL does something akin to "opening a file", or rather "describing to the system a file that will later be opened". The UNIX tool dd, on the other hand, was designed to be useful for exchanging files/datasets with mainframes. Of course, that's not at all what it is used for today, and possibly that was true even back then.
This also explains dd's weird syntax, which consists of specifying "key=value" or "key=flag1,flag2,..." parameters. That is entirely alien to UNIX, but is how the DD and other JCL (again, of the right kind) statements work.
I had remembered it was "convert and copy", but cc was already taken by the c compiler so they shifted it down a letter. That might have been apocryphal.
You know, this is true. And I've read any number of "you should never use dd, use this instead" articles over the years. But man, do I love me some dd.
dd is the software equivalent of removing the riving knife from a table saw.
Then again, I get very paranoid when I write software that has to delete arbitrary files recursively. One bad string gets in there and it's a very bad day.
Come to think of it, for my use cases, I would probably be fine to be behind IPv4 NAT as long as I also have an un-NATted IPv6 prefix. But a big part of the question here of course is whether IPv6 adoption is worthwhile...
reply