TIFU I messed up by trying to “repair” my girlfriend’s laptop.
What kind of clown does something like this with no backup?
Apparently, that kind of clown.
My first action on working on anyone’s machine for anything that has remotely any chance of changing anything at all is to create a backup. Even if they tell me it’s not needed. Even if they tell me not to bother. Even if they claim they just created a backup.
That has saved my ass so many times.
People like the below just should not be able to write about anything technical. If you don’t have an active CCNP (I do) or equivalent, just shut up about networking.
Your input is not needed.
IPv6 is not insecure because it lacks a NAT.
Not this asinine shit again. I hate this idiot and idiots like this in general. That is, the “Well, ackshually” shitheels who ignore how anything is in the real world, standard practices, and how things actually work. And also do not really understand the tech, either.
First of all, you stupid motherfucker, a device can (and most consumer crap does) implement NAPT/PAT with dynamic state but often has1 no explicit packet-filter policy engine (what most people would term a “firewall”), yet will still refuse unsolicited inbound flows simply because these flows don’t match any mapping/state. That is in fact de facto protection via reachability restriction. And that behavior is explicitly defined in NAT RFCs. The NAT RFCs in fact directly discuss filtering behavior associated with NAT operations (not just a separate firewall). Check out RFC 4787 (BCP 127), RFC 5382 (BCP 142), RFC 5508 (BCP 148) and RFC 7857 for how NAT really works. I’ve read those documents in toto several times over the years. I can guarantee that doofus has not.
Miraculously, he is right that “NAT isn’t designed as security,” but the clown-ass shitstain then uses that to imply “NAT adds no security value,” which is false in actual practice. Nearly every existing IPv4 NAT (NAPT/PAT) gateway2 enforces stateful inbound blocking out of the box. This NAT — independent of the router’s firewall function — does provide decent default-on security for home users.
On the other hand, his core premise (“modern routers default-deny inbound IPv6 anyway”) is absolutely not a sure thing. Standards and real deployments often have non-optimal defaults, including configs that default-forward unsolicited inbound IPv6 traffic. This is because unlike IPv4, IPv6 expects end-to-end connectivity. So that means many router vendors ship equipment that way. Thus, having NAT adds quite hardy extra protection in practice. That is to say, with any IPv4 home NAT you need both a firewall hole and a port-forward/mapping mistake to expose a device. With IPv6 global addressing, exposure can occur with only one minor screw-up. Then boom, your whole network is out there on the wide-open internet.
This disphit’s NAT explanation is also crazy sloppy (he frames it as mainly destination-rewrite based on static port forwards), just glossing over or ignoring that the real “default deny” effect largely comes from dynamically created state. He overstates a conditional truth (“IPv6 is fine if you keep equivalent edge filtering”) into an unsupported and often-wrong universal claim, using cherry-picked vendor defaults as if they were always the case. Also, he deliberately handwaves away as irrelevant the safety margin NAT provides in reality every damn day.
NAT wasn’t designed for security, wah wah. Carbon steel wasn’t designed for armor, either, but we use it for that in the real world.
My conclusion: Fuck this fucking clown who doesn’t know a damn thing, and what he thinks he knows is wrong. Read the RFCs, motherfucker. I’ll wait. You won’t understand them anyway, but I’ll still wait.
It would have been disappeared for sure. I wonder how many more cases like that got suppressed when the left held nearly-complete cultural dominance? Probably a lot.
And makes me wonder what stories the right will suppress now. Because you know they will — just different ones.
Nope. That’s not supersonic. Based on distance and relative motion, that F-35 is moving at about 650 knots. Close (it’s transonic) but not supersonic. They wouldn’t do a super pass that close — it’d blow out everyone’s eardrums.
Netflix’s official subtitles are terrible. Wondering if it’s AI? I suspect not, because I think with AI it’d actually be better.
Where I know both languages, they are often not even vaguely correct. Very annoying.
Canada becoming more dependent on China. In some ways, we pushed them that direction.
But they really think that’s gonna work out well for them? Of course it won’t. They’ll be played with, chewed up, then spit out out like a lion finding a vole running around in its enclosure. That is, if they don’t just become a satrapy fully under Chinese control — which is also likely.
Of course, a lot of the idiot leftists would cheer for that. Not as much as if it were under an Islamic theocracy, but still. They would like it.
A lot of women (not all, to be clear) interpret you interacting with them in a way that men would talk to each other as being creepy.
So, when you actually do meet the demand to, “Treat me just like you’d treat a man!” it is then denigrated as creepiness. No way to win. The best bet is to pretend to treat (again, most) women as one of the dudes but actually do not do that at all.
I don’t really give a rip what Scott Adams did or said outside of Dilbert.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, I read the comic and enjoyed it. It made me laugh more than once. That’s more than most people have ever done for my life. That’s enough for me. I just can’t bring myself to care what artists and entertainers do outside of their art.
That so many do is a major flaw of our age.
What Twenty Years of DevOps Has Failed to Do.
One of the primary reasons DevOps failed is that it invariably ends up becoming the developer help desk. Into that department is dumped all the tasks and project that developers don’t want to do, don’t understand how to do, or are not smart enough to undertake.
And in my experience devs are even worse to support than regular users. Most non-dev users are aware of how little they know. However, developers often think they know much more than they actually do. This leads to untold problems.
DevOps is a failed experiment. In the end, ops people should do ops and devs should do dev work. AI might change that some, but that’s the basic shape of it.
COVID pandemic enters seventh year with no end in sight
LOL. Clownish. Just as valid (and dumbass as all hell) to say, “The 1918 Influenza Pandemic enters 108th year with no end in sight.”
Covidians are both stupid and evil. Very bad combo.
This is clown liberals trying to engage in “gotchas.” And has nothing to do with what actual immigration policy should be, of course. The libs are so eager to portray themselves as the righteous, good people, they have no standards at all for what would benefit the nation or its existing populace. It’s virtue signaling all the way down.
AI and Business: It’s About Jobs.
This is what the AI-haters claim. But it’s wrong. I work in the trenches; I see what AI is doing and I can tell you it’s certainly increasing productivity and replacing people, especially for more junior and now even some mid-tier roles.
This post — like most in the genre — is wishful thinking by people who don’t actually work corporate jobs.
What is in the immediate economic future is tons of disemployment of juniors. As AI continues to improve, this will move up the stack to more mid-career roles. As I’ve already observed this post is incredibly wrong in its details and its speculation because what it is discussing, while a factor, is subsumed in the truth is that AI is already effectively replacing people ever day.
It’s so much better to evaluate the world as it is rather than as you wish it were. Or, even worse, allowing someone else to manipulate your reality which is what seems to be occurring here.
Why be so blind to reality? Why not just look around a bit and see what’s really occurring?
That set us back in many important ways by 50-75 years, and made climate change far worse than it otherwise needed to be. If we’d gone full nuke like France in 1970, we would’ve probably avoided 0.5°C of warming at least. Perhaps a lot more.
Degrowthers are terrible, terrible people.
Anyone who thinks AI is not boosting productivity: LOL.
Just as economists did with computers in general, they misdefined productivity gains, mismeasured them as well, and then declared this was not happening. A nice job (lying incessantly) if you can get it.