I mean, GPT 3.5 consistently quotes my dissertation and conference papers back to me when I ask it anything related to my (extremely niche, but still) research interests. It’s definitely had access to plenty of publications for a while without managing to make any sense of them.
Alternatively, and probably more likely, my papers are incoherent and it’s not GPT’s fault. If 8.0 gets tenure track maybe it will learn to ignore desperate ramblings of PhD students. Once 9.0 gets tenured though I assume it will only reference itself.
Actually, the inventor of the Keurig coffee pod system, John Sylvan, sold his ownership of the product for $50,000 in 1997. 7 years after founding the company and before single-serve coffee really took off.
There was great progress in compostable K-Cups from other vendors. And then Keurig did the DRM thing with the UV ink. So they literally made everything worse trying to keep their market reach.
I threw mine out and went back to a french press. Straight into compost, and the coffee tastes better.
Keurigs are actually pretty convenient when you’re only making one cup. The trick is to get one of the reusable filters and just use whatever coffee you like.
Yes, it’s a waste, but the whole thing was blown way the hell out of proportion.
I hike, kayak, canoe, whatever, all over the place. Every plastic bottle I pick up contains, what, 5 times the plastic? I pick up a LOT. And nobody thinks twice or raises a fuss.
We use a Keurig, but either with plastic refill cups or paper bags my wife brings home from the hotel.
A lot of stuff marked as recyclable is technically recyclable but cost prohibitive to do so. I don’t know what type of plastic these cups are, but when they claim recyclable, it should specify percent actually being recycled.
I’m liking aldi at the moment. They list all the separate parts of packaging for me and how it can be disposed. I hope its just a step to moving more to biodegradable rather than recyclable.
Again, possible to recycle does not mean they are actually recycled or economic to recycle. Many things are possible to recycle. Most are not. If their form factor or material makes them costly to recycle, they wont be. You say they are cheap. What cost to make new? What cost to collect, sort and recycle?
100% biodegradable would be better. With no plastic.
Strong dissagree. I am barely functional pre-caffeine in the early morning. A Keurig is about as much mental energy as I can muster to operate. It is a godsend to me on day I work early.
I think the problem is not in pod-based single-serving coffee machines. Those are common, and well-loved for a reason.
But there are easily available alternatives that do the exact same thing without requiring so much plastic, namely Senseo coffee pads (they’re grounds in coffee filter paper) or CoffeeB and its compressed coffee grounds balls (so it’s all just coffee ground, both the coffee and the pod). Probably a fair few more I don’t know about personally.
Possibly even Nestle with their Nescafe pods. They’re aluminium but some countries achieve effectively 100% recycling on that, then the only issue is the filter membrane they place inside and I don’t know whether that is easily separated during recycling or not.
K-cups are really amazinlgy bad. And it’s not like there aren’t much better solutions available. Philips has those fully bio-degradable pads, a local store now sells a type of coffee maker that uses just the coffee powder in balls where the outer shell is compressed grounds that is cracked open to get to the powder inside.
But no, Keurig and their fucking oceans of plastic waste.
Nespresso has ones that are fully metal, and so can be shredded and separated by mass to get scrap aluminum and prime compost fodder. They accept them back by mail.
I think it’s worth taking the time to learn IPv6 property. If you have a good understanding of IPv4 it shouldn’t take you more than an afternoon.
Eliminating NAT and just using firewall rules (ie what NAT does behind your back) is incredibly freeing.
I don’t get people complaining about typing out IPs. I like to give all of my clients full FQDNs but you don’t have to. Just using mDNS would be enough to avoid typing a bunch of numbers.
Maybe I have Stockholm Syndrome, but I like NAT. It’s like, due to the flaws of IPv4 we basically accidentally get subnets segmented off, no listening ports, have to explicitly configure port forwarding to be able to listen for connections, which kinda implies you know what you’re doing (ssshh don’t talk about UPnP). Accidental security of a default deny policy even without any firewalls configured. Haha. I’m still getting into this stuff though, please feel free to enlighten me
Anything connected to an untrusted network should have a firewall, doesn’t matter if it’s IPv4 or IPv6.
There’s functionally no difference between NAT on IPv4 or directly allowing ports on IPv6, they both are deny by default and require explicit forwarding. Subnetting is also still a thing on IPv6.
If anything, IPv6 is more secure because it’s impossible to do a full network scan. My ISP assigned 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 addresses just to me. Good luck finding the used ones.
With IPv4 if you spin up a new service on a common port it usually gets detected within 24h nowadays.
Ahh, woah, I never thought about the huge address space would affect network scans and such.
With NAT on IPv4 I set up port forwarding at my router. Where would I set up the IPv6 equivalent?
I guess assumptions I have at the moment are that my router is a designated appliance for networking concerns and doing all the config there makes sense, and secondly any client device to be possibly misconfigured. Or worse, it was properly configured by me but then the OS vendor pushed an update and now it’s misconfigured again.
With NAT on IPv4 I set up port forwarding at my router. Where would I set up the IPv6 equivalent?
The same thing, except for the router translating 123.123.123.123 to 192.168.0.250 it will directly route abcd:abcd::beef to abcd:abcd::beef.
Assuming you have multiple hosts in your IPv6 network you can simply add “port forwardings” for each of them. Which is another advantage for IPv6, you can port forward the same port multiple times for each of your hosts.
I guess assumptions I have at the moment are that my router is a designated appliance for networking concerns and doing all the config there makes sense, and secondly any client device to be possibly misconfigured. Or worse, it was properly configured by me but then the OS vendor pushed an update and now it’s misconfigured again.
That still holds true, the router/firewall has absolute control over what goes in and out of the network on which ports and for which hosts. I would never expose a client directly to the internet, doesn’t matter if IPv4 or IPv6. Even servers are not directly exposed, they still go through firewalls.
I wouldn’t rely on the size of the address space to provide security. It’s possible to find hosts through methods other than brute force scanning. I remember seeing a talk from a conference (CCC? DEF CON? I can’t remember) where they were able to find hosts in government IPv6 address space (might have been DOD?) through stuff like certificate transparency logs and other DNS side channels.
Will take a look at the talk once I get time, thanks. If you can find the original one you were talking about, please link.
For servers, there is some truth that the address space does not provide much benefit since the addressing of them is predictable most of the time.
However, it is a huge win in security for private internet. Thanks to the privacy extension, those IPs are not just generated completely random, they also rotate regularily.
It should not be the sole source of security but it definitely adds to it if done right.
Could a hypothetical attacker not just get you to visit a webpage, or an image embedded in another, or even a speculatively loaded URL by your browser. Then from the v6 address of the connection, directly attack that address hoping for a misconfiguration of your router (which is probable, as most of them are in the dumbest ways)
Vs v4, where the attacker just sees either your routers IP address (and then has to hope the router has a vulnerability or a port forward) or increasingly gets the IP address of the CGNAT block which might have another 1000 routers behind it.
Unless you’re aggressively rotating through your v6 address space, you’ve now given advertisers and data brokers a pretty accurate unique identifier of you. A much more prevalent “attack” vector.
There is this notion that IPv6 exposes any host directly to the internet, which is not correct. When the client IP is attacked “directly” the attacker still talks to the router responsible for your network first and foremost.
While a misconfiguration on the router is possible, the same is possible on IPv4. In fact, it’s even a “feature” in many consumer routers called “DMZ host”, which exposes all ports to a single host. Which is obviously a security nightmare in both IPv4 and IPv6.
Just as CGNAT is a thing on IPv4, you can have as many firewalls behind one another as you want. Just because the target IP always is the same does not mean it suddenly is less secure than if the IP gets “NATted” 4 times between routers. It actually makes errors more likely because diagnosing and configuring is much harder in that environment.
Unless you’re aggressively rotating through your v6 address space, you’ve now given advertisers and data brokers a pretty accurate unique identifier of you. A much more prevalent “attack” vector.
That is what the privacy extension was created for, with it enabled it rotates IP addresses pretty regularily, there are much better ways to keep track of users than their IP addresses. Many implementations of the privacy extension still have lots of issues with times that are too long or with it not even enabled by default.
Hopefully that will get better when IPv6 becomes the default after the heat death of the universe.
Since you can have multiple IPv6 addresses on one machine, you can use a rotating address for all outbound connections and a permanent address for inbound connections. If you visit a malicious website that tries to attack the IP that visits it, there will be no ports open. They would have to scan billions of addresses to find the permanent address. All of that scanning would be easily detected and blocked by an IDS.
There is this notion that IPv6 exposes any host directly to the internet, which is not correct.
TP-Link routers used to actually do this. They didn’t have an IPv6 firewall at all. In fact they didn’t add an IPv6 firewall to their “enterprise-focused” 10Gbps router (ER8411) until October 2023.
That and the IPv6 address on client systems will periodically rotate (privacy extensions), so the IPs used today won’t necessarily be the ones used tomorrow.
(you can disable that of course, and it’s usually disabled by default on server-focused OSes)
I don’t think you have Stockholm syndrome. You just like what you already understand well. It’s a normal part of the human condition.
All those features of nat also work with IPV6 with no nat in the exact same way. When I want to open up a port I just make a new firewall rule. Plus you get the advantages of being able to address the ach host behind the firewall. It’s a huge win with no losses.
Instead of nat and port forwards that rewrite, your firewall is set to only forward specific traffic, exactly how’d you’d configure outbound forwarding on a nat network (but opposite directions)
Every time I see a defense of IPv4 and NAT, I think back to the days of trying to get myself and my roommate to play C&C: Generals together online, with a 2v2 game, with one of us hosting. Getting just the right combination of port forwarding working was more effort than us playing C&C: Red Alert on dial up when we both lived at home.
With IPv6, the answer is to open incoming traffic on the port(s) to the host machine (or just both since the other guy is might host next time). With IPv4, we have to have a conversation about port forwarding and possibly hairpin routes on top of that. This isn’t a gate for people “who know what they’re doing”, it’s just a bunch of extra bullshit to deal with.
Sure but it still requires trusting them when they pinky promise they won’t send any recall data. Fuck them tbh. It just makes me feel even more right about my decision to switch to Linux years ago.
That’s the part that makes everybody nervous though. Everything from the global dragnet surveillance network to the marketing company behind your grocery store app is most interested in “metadata.”
Companies like Microsoft will loudly say they don’t want your cat pictures and memes and college papers, they’re not tying your usage to an explicit file with your name and favorite pasta varieties…
…BUT that forced transmission of “anonymous user data”, could potentially be super effective in identifying and manipulating you. With enough of it, you can easily put together a profile of an individual.
Heck, for a while, TOR would advise against resizing your brower window because the window size in pixels could potentially help fingerprint you on the web. How nuts is that?!
Most people actually worried about a spook digging through “videosHomework” are indeed paranoid.
But there’s been a lot of research at what can be done even if you’re just “userID 1284hdkfuw724bfiueb”
Specifically this version of yq - there are other versions bundled with distros that look and act very differently and lack the potency of this version.
Tan suit. Don’t have to say much more about this one. Tons of people have worn tan suits without being hassled about it. I wonder why they hassled Obama specifically about it?
This was when he was running for President and while he was President. Those are just examples off the top of my head.
I don’t even like Obama. He let war criminals off the hook and then legalized and codified the worst excesses of the War on Terror under Bush.
But it’s clear as hell that his mere existence made conservatives lose their fucking minds and they’ve never come back from it.
Also, at least two of these examples have full fucking wikipedia pages for the controversy alone. It sent conservatives into such a tailspin that we have to have encyclopedia entries about these events.
EDIT: Only somewhat related, but after 4 years of Obama, the racists were fucking furious at a film like Django Unchained. So many who were like “I like Quentin Tarantino, but I’m not watching some shit that is racist against white people!” Yeah, they only like Tarantino films filled with white people dropping the N-bomb repeatedly.
Holy! Never knew any of that. I wasn’t on social media that much during his presidency, so whatever the news showed is what I saw. And obviously they weren’t showing this insanity at the forefront. Thank you for this, gonna check it all out.
Plenty of internet photos of white people wearing shirts that said things like “put the white back in the White House” or “It’s called the White House for a reason.” Racism was rampant and on public display.
I always thought of romney as the republican's plan C. If White Supremacy fails, and More White Supremacy fails, then they might try Quieter White Supremacy.
This is disappointing. Due to Kagi requiring an account and billing I would say transparency should be vitally important for a them since privacy concerns are going to be a large reason a lot of people are looking to switch from Google in the first place. It’s always a concern brought up when search alternatives are discussed in forums and the “just trust me BRO” is going to start to ring kind of hollow if they play little games like this.
“Just trust me bro” is always bullshit with capitalism. On a long emough time line for-profit orgs will always expand to double/triple/quadruple/etc dip into their customer base. It might as well be a fundamental law of economics at this point.
Simulating even one neuron is very complex. Neurons in artificial neuron nets used in machine learning are a gross oversimplification. On top on this you need to get the wiring right. On top on this you need to get the sensorial system right (a brain without input is worthless). On top of this you need an environment. So it’s multiple layers of complexity that we don’t have
To be fair, nature had millions od years to optimize the power consumption and we only observe the successful results since the failures didn’t survive.
We’re having our particular technological revolutions as well. In little more than a century we’ve managed to construct computing devices with capabilities that may have taken thousands of years to be achieved by nature.
I wish they were right because it would be awesome if all religious fundies were taken somewhere else. Too bad they often aren’t good people and many, if not most, would end up being left behind. Imagine the tantrums when they realize they’ve missed the rapture. I bet we’d see a rise in Satanism that wasn’t just a front to challenge Christian bias in religious rights but instead a rebellion against a god that spurned them. And then I wonder if they’d be surprised that atheists still want nothing to do with them.
Though, being real, I would say that it’s a movie that gets more interesting on second watch rather than being one out need to watch twice to get. I honestly haven’t ever run across a movie like that.
kbin.life
Top