modernpacifist

Either mark-for-delete has the same impact as deleting in terms of shooting all the Cloud resources associated with the subscription, at which point the outage still happens but maybe the recovery is smoother or you've just delayed the inevitable by a week because no one will look at it unless there is actual impact.

Obviously carrier pigeons carrying messages encrypted with post-quantum ciphers where keys have been sent ahead of time using USPS because no one would be so rude as to read someone elses mail.

A very complicated pattern matching engine providing an answer based on it's inputs, heuristics and previous training.

In reality, we are likely about to get yet another data point on where the lines for the average person really lie in the dimensions of functionality, friction, network effect and privacy.

There are those that will stay on Discord because the benefits of the first three outweigh the degradation of privacy. Then there are those that will leave because the first three aren't important enough to outweigh the privacy loss. There will be all sorts of people in between.

HN has a rather amplified showing of folks who won't trust anything unless it's completely decentralized using E2EE clients verifiably compiled from source that they'be personally audited running on hardware made from self-mined rare metals. The reality is that there is a spectrum of folks out there all with different preferences and while some folks will leave (in this case) Discord, others will remain because thats where the folks they want to chat/game/voice with.

Likely the intended meaning here is that the practicality of space data centers goes against the physical realities of operating in space. The single most prevalent issue with operating anything in space is heat dissipation in that the only method of doing so is via radiation of heat, which is very slow. Meanwhile, the latest Nvidia reference architectures convert such ungodly amounts of power into heat (and occasionally higher share prices) that they call for water cooling and extensive heat-exchange plant.

Even if one got the the economics of launching/connecting GPU racks into space into negligable territory and made great use of the abundent solar energy, the heat generated (and in space retained) by this equipment would prevent running it at 100% utilization as it does in terrestrial facilities.

In addition to each rack worth of equipment you'd need to achieve enough heat sink surface area to match the heat dissipation capabilities of water-cooled systems via radiation alone.

A leased line though will only get you A<->B where sure, A and B can be anywhere but have to be concrete locations/hand off points when provisioned. It does ultimatley come down to the service that one orders from a commercial entity.

A hypothetical court order saying something like "kill internet access" would likely cause an IP transit service to stop working (implemented by said provider no longer announcing global IP routing tables to that service) but a leased line between two locations would likely remain untouched since that isn't an "internet" service. So they might not need to come knocking if they're reasonably confident that all such edge cases like leased lines end up at dead-ends because any internet-capable product they might be enabling access to is sufficiently disabled.

I do imagine though that if they get as far as "kill the internet" that obtaining a subsequent court order to go after some suspicious leased line would be trivial.

As a side note, I find that IP transit is typically the cheapest aspect of providing an internet service since a cross-connect at a well connected DC will cost well under $1/Mbps/month unmetered. Plus the cost is very well amortized when residential users are the target. This has tended to hold when one takes into account the co-lo costs as well since network gear doing relatively basic packet forwarding/internet table routing doesn't take up that much space or power.

The [ONT → OLT(+BNG)] → Internet] sections of the paths will continue to be owned by commercial entities that can still be the subject of court orders and/or government pressure.

Even if you were to roll your own cable in the ground to your own ONT/OLT/BNG at some point you will need to acquire IP transit or peering from other commercial entities.

A DoS that will disappear once you close the funnel. Tailscale are proxying the traffic so your public IP isn’t exposed. Your choice of port makes no difference.

The comparison breaks down since, in race car terms, the great acceleration isn’t enough to offset the negatives that make electric cars poor race cars. So in a sense it is pointless cosplay. Even the acceleration might be working against itself since the great acceleration comes at the cost of the battery pack expending more energy, contributing to heat build up.

This isn’t to say the heat problem couldn’t be managed, but one of the biggest issues with race cars generally is heat management so starting from a platform with a unique and significant heat problem isn’t ideal. Then the weight and overall longevity of the battery pack comes into play.

To tout the acceleration without discussing the drawbacks involved in delivering it or the practicalities of leveraging it suggests that it’s such a great feature that the drawbacks either don’t exist or don’t matter.

> Most race cars aren't electric though? That analogy makes no sense.

No, they aren't. I attend a significant amount of track events as a driver and I will see maybe 1 electic car every few events. Besides the lack of charging infrastrucutre at most race tracks, the one positive of instant torque/power is significantly outweighed by their overall mass and significant heat generation.

The latter tends to result in a Tesla S being unable to last more than 20 minutes at Laguna Seca or Sonoma before the battery pack overheats and reduces power output requiring the car to exit the track.

Removing the security mechanism in my comment is akin to opening the safe to enable the search or entering your PIN number on a phone to unlock it. I can't really see how otherwise removing a roadblock to enable law enforcement to perform their court approved mandate would lead to further charges for the act of helping them do so. Of course if you're referring to poison-pill mechanisms that upon removal destroy the data they wanted to search for then sure, more charges are coming.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If they have a search warrant then a judge has, from a legal perspective, determined that the request/search is reasonable. So while you have the right to secure against unreasonable cases I think it is a reasonable trade off that those security mechanisms/processes/etc should either be removed by yourself or you should expect them to be removed for you.

It seems reasonable to suggest that the number of profit-driven ransomware endeavors and the number of for-fun ransomware endeavors can both be non-zero and contain some overlap and some non-overlap. Therefore it seems that to make it unprofitable would at least eliminate the former reason which under all by the worst case scenario where those numbers are perfectly equal and overlapping would result in fewer ransomware endeavors.

To say we shouldn't do X because it doesn't perfectly eliminate/solve Y is akin to saying we should do nothing because by that standard, we'll never do anything about Y.

I would agree. My standard engagement with CS in Australia was a lot more personable and once it was recognized that a situation was off script they were far more willing to go into problem solving mode.