And yet it really will be different soon. So far automation has just caused people to move from one type of job to another, but we're getting to the point where AI+robotics will be able to handle the replacement jobs as well. What are you supposed to do when your job is automated and all of the potential replacement jobs are automated as well? There won't even be "programming the AI" jobs, because AI can program too.
This may not actually happen this generation, but it is going to happen, and probably sooner than you'd think.
If this trip leads to a long-term reduction of CO2 emissions greater than 16.5 T then it's worth it. In effect, not taking the trip would cause more emissions.
Even most paid certs are only verified with a file on the webserver or an email sent to the domain.
EV certs are the exception (and in that case the CA does, or at least is supposed to, provide an actual useful identity verification service), but for normal certs you can easily automate the check in exactly the way LE does.
Read the rest of the post. Strong evidence that the JS was being injected by a middle hop, notably one inside the network of the ISP responsible for China's great firewall.
That they targeted an ad network doesn't mean it was yet another bad ad, it just means that the ad network was a good target because of the way it was included on many other sites.
Last year, Github was hit by a DDoS caused by attack code injected into plain-text http:// traffic by someone in China.
Let's assume for a moment that the attack on Github consisted of altering the contents of a single 50 byte packet. If that 50 byte packet corresponds to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of rewritten traffic, then the remaining 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% would correspond to 10^19 yottabytes of traffic.
Bearing in mind that total global internet traffic is barely even one zettabyte per year, let alone over a million trillion yottabytes, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the percentage of attacks that occur on the webserver as opposed to somewhere in-flight is lower than 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. (Especially when you consider that the DDoS that Github was struggling with for 4 days most likely involved rewriting more than a single 50-byte packet.)
If Mirai could spoof source addresses then it could use DNS amplification attacks and the like to send even more traffic. Mirai is particularly impressive because of the amount of traffic it can source without doing that, but that doesn't mean that spoofing prevention had no effect on it.
They'll have more address space available, but it'll still be in contiguous blocks. If an ISP as a whole is being a problem then all you have to do is block their v6 allocations, which is no harder than blocking their v4 allocations. (Or possibly easier since the ISP is likely to have a single v6 allocation vs dozens of v4 ones.)
I live in a rural area of the UK (my speed is 2.2 Mbps) and the issue is not being able to afford no better - that is all that is available down the end of a long copper line.
IPv6 is a one-page solution too, if you ignore all of the actual details.
As a small example, consider these two paragraphs that the page says for DNS:
Name to address mapping is performed with the AX record. AX returns a 64-bit IP address instead of a 32-bit IP address. A DNS server which supports IPxl should automatically translate any known A records for a given name to AX records by prepending 0.0.0.1 to the address. It should likewise automatically translate any AX records with the prefix 0.0.0.1 into A records.
PTR records for IPxl are located under "ipxl.arpa" and work the same way as the records in "in-addr.arpa". A special tree will be created for *.1.0.0.0.ipxl.arpa which CNAMEs each individual record to the respective record in in-addr.arpa leaving the in-addr.arpa zone authoritative.
And here's what the v6 equivalent would look like:
Name to address mapping is performed with the AAAA record. AAAA returns a 128-bit IP address instead of a 32-bit IP address.
PTR records for IPv6 are located under "ip6.arpa" and work in much the same way as the records in "in-addr.arpa", except that each level of the hierarchy represents one hex nibble rather than one byte.
It's a lot simpler, even. And then it comes time to actually specify the standards, and you need to issue an RFC that adds an AAAA (AX) record type to DNS, and an RFC that specifies rDNS and instructs IANA to create the reverse zone, and RFCs that tell people how to handle a mixture of AAAA (AX) and A, and RFCs that cover SMTP's MX record interaction with AAAAs/AXs, and oh let's not forget that there's no standard API for looking up non-A records in programs so you've got to specify that too.
The only reason IPv6 is so "complicated" is because we did go through and specify the necessary changes to all affected protocols. All of these "one page alternatives" would've had to do the exact same thing to get them operational, and thus would have ended up with just as much "make-work" as v6. Except it's not make work, it's the necessary work to support expanded addresses.
Assuming you meant Comcast, they should have v6 deployed over their entire network. Qwest are apparently doing 6rd so you should be able to get v6 with them too, albeit over a tunnel.
Can't comment on dialup though. I suspect most ISPs would rather just let their dialup platforms die rather than change anything about them.
Okay, you've confused me, I'm not even sure which of my reasoning you think is flawed, let alone why. I'll try again from the start.
You said this:
And on the other hand, as soon as a civilization is living in a simulation, it cannot create a simulation of equal complexity anymore, so as soon as it has happened, the complexity of the possible simulations drop (for simplicity, assume below 0.5 of the surrounding simulation), so withing a small number of steps (simulation-in-simulation-in-simulation...), we have that any simulated world will have a simulation complexity very close to zero.
Which seems reasonable enough, but then you said this:
As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero,
which isn't actually clear at all, but even if we assume that it was:
the probability of us living in a simulation is essentially zero.
...this doesn't follow. If you picked a simulation at random, the probability of it having humans in it would indeed be close to zero. However, the number of simulations that are complex enough to support humans will still vastly outnumber the number of real universes, so we're still more likely to be in a simulation than not.
No, it would still be evolution. Why would it suddenly stop being evolution just because our physics was running on some computing substrate rather than ${whatever the base universe is running on}? Likewise, I'd still argue we have a real existence even if we're on a computer -- everything is real enough from our perspective, which is the only one we have access to.
(Unless you define "real" as "not simulated", in which case obviously it's by definition not real; that's not the definition I'm using above.)
I feel like you completely ignored the AC grandparent post, went off on a tangent and then continued conflating those two different types of ID. Don't do that; the distinction is important.
As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero
This isn't actually clear. Even the post you responded to points this out: this isn't a call you can make without knowing what the parent universes look like (or without theoretically ruling out the possibility of much more complex universes than our own).
But it doesn't even matter if the vast majority of simulated worlds are too simple to support our human life. The important part is whether the majority of worlds that do support human life are simulated or not, since we already know that we're in one of those worlds. The existence of many more simple simulations won't alter the "complex simulated worlds":"non-simulated worlds" ratio.
Are you arguing that it's not possible for our universe to be a simulation? Or rather, that it's not worth seriously considering the possibility that it could be? Because I can't see the basis for that. We've made our own physics simulations, and they do tend to be small-scale and don't incorporate every physical law, but that's basically just a limitation of our knowledge and computing power. Nothing I've seen suggests that it'd be fundamentally impossible to produce a simulation that, from the inside, looks the same as our universe.
Also, a simulated universe doesn't necessarily imply that somebody designed it. For instance, it may be possible to enumerate the set of possible physics rules and then try them out one-by-one. (Please read this blog post for a longer and more convincing version of the previous sentence.)
Fun fact: most sentence fragments of about 5 words or so are unique (excluding things like idioms and quoting).
For example, take "And yet Google has complied" from the summary. 14 results, all of which are quotes from this article. The folks at OMG Ubuntu are the first people to ever utter the phrase "And yet Google has complied" on the internet.
Not quite a roll of tape, but check out LightDims. You get one set of stickers that dim "50-80%" (or rather three sets, in black, silver and white) and another set that, as far as I can tell, are completely opaque.
They only really stick on flat surfaces, but they look better than using a random bit of tape, and the opaque ones really are opaque.
I'm not completely convinced that's the case, at least from your numbers.
You're already paying social security for 20% of the population, so that's 20% of the money covered right there. About 50% or so work and will thus essentially pay their own basic income via the basic income tax. Eliminating bureaucratic overhead in SS/M will also save a bunch of money. All of that accounts for about three quarters of the total amount needed to pay for the basic income.
Okay, sure, "three quarters" is very different from "all" and you'll still have to work out where the rest comes from. But that sounds a damn sight more doable than "we've covered a fifth, now what?".
A universal basic income might actually help here. With all the various government aid programs replaced with a single monthly payment (or maybe make it weekly?), it makes it a lot easier to say "Look, you fucked up. You'll have to wait until the next payment day.". When other nearby cities are still running those food aid programs it makes it a lot harder to resist the calls to run your own too.
Also there's two posts further up that I think are worth quoting here too:
The other thing you'll see with the poor is they're used to everything going to shit. It's tough to plan ahead and stick to the plan when you've spent your entire life having shit fall apart around you. When things are going well you don't expect it to last, so you live for the moment.
When you're poor you can only afford low-quality goods that break all of the time and if you're on welfare you need to be sure to use it all before the end of each month. That is why they and especially their kids get into this habit of acting as if money is a perishable good that needs to be spent ASAP.
A basic income that's universal and reliable (as in, something we maintain for generations rather than a few months or years) seems like it might work out differently.
That's not actually that much money. The US already spends $1tn/year on welfare (which would be replaced by the basic income), and if 125 million working adults contributed $7,200/year of tax into the fund you'd have the other $0.9tn/year. But how would all those people afford an extra $7200/year of tax, you ask? From the basic income. Duh.
(I'm sure the numbers in both of our posts are very approximate, but hopefully you get the idea.)
I can't see it flying either though. Somebody would call it communist and the whole idea would be finished. The US would prefer half their population on the streets before they do a basic income.
If the GPL applied, then yes, that's right, but you don't need to put your documents under the GPL just to edit them with a GPLed piece of software. The only way they'd end up GPLed is if you deliberately licensed them as such for some reason (at which point you have only yourself to blame if you decide you didn't want to do that).
btw, I've noticed a change in the GPL busy-bodies' approach to evangelism. It used to be "set your code free with GPL" or some such. I could never understand how my code could be more free with more restrictions placed upon how it can be used.
The only extra restriction the GPL has over BSD is "you can't add more restrictions to this code". Saying BSD is more free than GPL is a bit like saying anarchy is more free than democracy because you can imprison/enslave whoever you like. In practice you end up being less free with anarchy.
Now I'm noticing the change to more of a "your code isn't good enough to be GPL-licensed" style of approach.
Well I have no idea what that's about. There's no minimum quality bar for GPLed code; go for it.
I never understood why the GPL busy bodies were so concerned with what i did with the code i write.:)
Because it affects everyone, or perhaps more to the point it affects them a lot more than it affects you (because you can always do whatever you like with your own code).
Ultimately it's your call, of course. It would just be nice if your call contributed to the network effects of open-and-will-stay-open code.
I think overkill was the right call. I'm not convinced that 64-bits would be sufficient for everybody to get away with NAT indefinitely. I think it might be, but even if so I think realistically ISPs would've given allocations that were too small.
Case in point: ISPs giving/60s or even/64s in 128-bit v6, even though they easily have enough space to do/48s. In a 64-bit v6 world, that would probably translate into people getting 256 individual address or so, which technically is enough for "most" people today but actually starts to look really tight when subnetted or if you include future growth. That would lead to NAT, and I don't think that's a risk we should've taken.
And being bothered about how 128 bits don't fit neatly into a register is being bothered over nothing. It just doesn't matter that much. Very few systems are constrained by how many millions of IP addresses they can add together per second. Common-place NAT would (does) have a much bigger impact on people's lives, and it's much more important that we avoid that.
Realistically, the Linux ecosystem forces you to pick between running a minor distro that you don't want to use, running a major distro with systemd removed (with broken functionality) or giving up and using systemd.
I suppose you could technically call that "not forcing" on the basis that you made the choice to use Linux in the first place, but... nope. Still being forced.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet it really will be different soon. So far automation has just caused people to move from one type of job to another, but we're getting to the point where AI+robotics will be able to handle the replacement jobs as well. What are you supposed to do when your job is automated and all of the potential replacement jobs are automated as well? There won't even be "programming the AI" jobs, because AI can program too.
This may not actually happen this generation, but it is going to happen, and probably sooner than you'd think.
So? This is okay.
If this trip leads to a long-term reduction of CO2 emissions greater than 16.5 T then it's worth it. In effect, not taking the trip would cause more emissions.
Even most paid certs are only verified with a file on the webserver or an email sent to the domain.
EV certs are the exception (and in that case the CA does, or at least is supposed to, provide an actual useful identity verification service), but for normal certs you can easily automate the check in exactly the way LE does.
Read the rest of the post. Strong evidence that the JS was being injected by a middle hop, notably one inside the network of the ISP responsible for China's great firewall.
That they targeted an ad network doesn't mean it was yet another bad ad, it just means that the ad network was a good target because of the way it was included on many other sites.
Last year, Github was hit by a DDoS caused by attack code injected into plain-text http:// traffic by someone in China.
Let's assume for a moment that the attack on Github consisted of altering the contents of a single 50 byte packet. If that 50 byte packet corresponds to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of rewritten traffic, then the remaining 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% would correspond to 10^19 yottabytes of traffic.
Bearing in mind that total global internet traffic is barely even one zettabyte per year, let alone over a million trillion yottabytes, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the percentage of attacks that occur on the webserver as opposed to somewhere in-flight is lower than 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. (Especially when you consider that the DDoS that Github was struggling with for 4 days most likely involved rewriting more than a single 50-byte packet.)
If Mirai could spoof source addresses then it could use DNS amplification attacks and the like to send even more traffic. Mirai is particularly impressive because of the amount of traffic it can source without doing that, but that doesn't mean that spoofing prevention had no effect on it.
They'll have more address space available, but it'll still be in contiguous blocks. If an ISP as a whole is being a problem then all you have to do is block their v6 allocations, which is no harder than blocking their v4 allocations. (Or possibly easier since the ISP is likely to have a single v6 allocation vs dozens of v4 ones.)
I live in a rural area of the UK (my speed is 2.2 Mbps) and the issue is not being able to afford no better - that is all that is available down the end of a long copper line.
A&A can double that.
It'll cost extra, but you did say that the cost wasn't the issue...
Extrinsic rewards destroy intrinsic motivation. I first heard that in the context of achievements in games, but it applies even more obviously here.
IPv6 is a one-page solution too, if you ignore all of the actual details.
As a small example, consider these two paragraphs that the page says for DNS:
And here's what the v6 equivalent would look like:
It's a lot simpler, even. And then it comes time to actually specify the standards, and you need to issue an RFC that adds an AAAA (AX) record type to DNS, and an RFC that specifies rDNS and instructs IANA to create the reverse zone, and RFCs that tell people how to handle a mixture of AAAA (AX) and A, and RFCs that cover SMTP's MX record interaction with AAAAs/AXs, and oh let's not forget that there's no standard API for looking up non-A records in programs so you've got to specify that too.
The only reason IPv6 is so "complicated" is because we did go through and specify the necessary changes to all affected protocols. All of these "one page alternatives" would've had to do the exact same thing to get them operational, and thus would have ended up with just as much "make-work" as v6. Except it's not make work, it's the necessary work to support expanded addresses.
Assuming you meant Comcast, they should have v6 deployed over their entire network. Qwest are apparently doing 6rd so you should be able to get v6 with them too, albeit over a tunnel.
Can't comment on dialup though. I suspect most ISPs would rather just let their dialup platforms die rather than change anything about them.
Okay, you've confused me, I'm not even sure which of my reasoning you think is flawed, let alone why. I'll try again from the start.
You said this:
And on the other hand, as soon as a civilization is living in a simulation, it cannot create a simulation of equal complexity anymore, so as soon as it has happened, the complexity of the possible simulations drop (for simplicity, assume below 0.5 of the surrounding simulation), so withing a small number of steps (simulation-in-simulation-in-simulation...), we have that any simulated world will have a simulation complexity very close to zero.
Which seems reasonable enough, but then you said this:
As our world clearly has a complexity significantly above zero,
which isn't actually clear at all, but even if we assume that it was:
the probability of us living in a simulation is essentially zero.
...this doesn't follow. If you picked a simulation at random, the probability of it having humans in it would indeed be close to zero. However, the number of simulations that are complex enough to support humans will still vastly outnumber the number of real universes, so we're still more likely to be in a simulation than not.
No, it would still be evolution. Why would it suddenly stop being evolution just because our physics was running on some computing substrate rather than ${whatever the base universe is running on}? Likewise, I'd still argue we have a real existence even if we're on a computer -- everything is real enough from our perspective, which is the only one we have access to.
(Unless you define "real" as "not simulated", in which case obviously it's by definition not real; that's not the definition I'm using above.)
I feel like you completely ignored the AC grandparent post, went off on a tangent and then continued conflating those two different types of ID. Don't do that; the distinction is important.
But your example isn't valid, so it doesn't say anything about the original line of reasoning.
This isn't actually clear. Even the post you responded to points this out: this isn't a call you can make without knowing what the parent universes look like (or without theoretically ruling out the possibility of much more complex universes than our own).
But it doesn't even matter if the vast majority of simulated worlds are too simple to support our human life. The important part is whether the majority of worlds that do support human life are simulated or not, since we already know that we're in one of those worlds. The existence of many more simple simulations won't alter the "complex simulated worlds":"non-simulated worlds" ratio.
Are you arguing that it's not possible for our universe to be a simulation? Or rather, that it's not worth seriously considering the possibility that it could be? Because I can't see the basis for that. We've made our own physics simulations, and they do tend to be small-scale and don't incorporate every physical law, but that's basically just a limitation of our knowledge and computing power. Nothing I've seen suggests that it'd be fundamentally impossible to produce a simulation that, from the inside, looks the same as our universe.
Also, a simulated universe doesn't necessarily imply that somebody designed it. For instance, it may be possible to enumerate the set of possible physics rules and then try them out one-by-one. (Please read this blog post for a longer and more convincing version of the previous sentence.)
Fun fact: most sentence fragments of about 5 words or so are unique (excluding things like idioms and quoting).
For example, take "And yet Google has complied" from the summary. 14 results, all of which are quotes from this article. The folks at OMG Ubuntu are the first people to ever utter the phrase "And yet Google has complied" on the internet.
Not quite a roll of tape, but check out LightDims. You get one set of stickers that dim "50-80%" (or rather three sets, in black, silver and white) and another set that, as far as I can tell, are completely opaque.
They only really stick on flat surfaces, but they look better than using a random bit of tape, and the opaque ones really are opaque.
I'm not completely convinced that's the case, at least from your numbers.
You're already paying social security for 20% of the population, so that's 20% of the money covered right there. About 50% or so work and will thus essentially pay their own basic income via the basic income tax. Eliminating bureaucratic overhead in SS/M will also save a bunch of money. All of that accounts for about three quarters of the total amount needed to pay for the basic income.
Okay, sure, "three quarters" is very different from "all" and you'll still have to work out where the rest comes from. But that sounds a damn sight more doable than "we've covered a fifth, now what?".
A universal basic income might actually help here. With all the various government aid programs replaced with a single monthly payment (or maybe make it weekly?), it makes it a lot easier to say "Look, you fucked up. You'll have to wait until the next payment day.". When other nearby cities are still running those food aid programs it makes it a lot harder to resist the calls to run your own too.
Also there's two posts further up that I think are worth quoting here too:
A basic income that's universal and reliable (as in, something we maintain for generations rather than a few months or years) seems like it might work out differently.
That's not actually that much money. The US already spends $1tn/year on welfare (which would be replaced by the basic income), and if 125 million working adults contributed $7,200/year of tax into the fund you'd have the other $0.9tn/year. But how would all those people afford an extra $7200/year of tax, you ask? From the basic income. Duh.
(I'm sure the numbers in both of our posts are very approximate, but hopefully you get the idea.)
I can't see it flying either though. Somebody would call it communist and the whole idea would be finished. The US would prefer half their population on the streets before they do a basic income.
If the GPL applied, then yes, that's right, but you don't need to put your documents under the GPL just to edit them with a GPLed piece of software. The only way they'd end up GPLed is if you deliberately licensed them as such for some reason (at which point you have only yourself to blame if you decide you didn't want to do that).
The only extra restriction the GPL has over BSD is "you can't add more restrictions to this code". Saying BSD is more free than GPL is a bit like saying anarchy is more free than democracy because you can imprison/enslave whoever you like. In practice you end up being less free with anarchy.
Well I have no idea what that's about. There's no minimum quality bar for GPLed code; go for it.
Because it affects everyone, or perhaps more to the point it affects them a lot more than it affects you (because you can always do whatever you like with your own code).
Ultimately it's your call, of course. It would just be nice if your call contributed to the network effects of open-and-will-stay-open code.
I think overkill was the right call. I'm not convinced that 64-bits would be sufficient for everybody to get away with NAT indefinitely. I think it might be, but even if so I think realistically ISPs would've given allocations that were too small.
Case in point: ISPs giving /60s or even /64s in 128-bit v6, even though they easily have enough space to do /48s. In a 64-bit v6 world, that would probably translate into people getting 256 individual address or so, which technically is enough for "most" people today but actually starts to look really tight when subnetted or if you include future growth. That would lead to NAT, and I don't think that's a risk we should've taken.
And being bothered about how 128 bits don't fit neatly into a register is being bothered over nothing. It just doesn't matter that much. Very few systems are constrained by how many millions of IP addresses they can add together per second. Common-place NAT would (does) have a much bigger impact on people's lives, and it's much more important that we avoid that.
Realistically, the Linux ecosystem forces you to pick between running a minor distro that you don't want to use, running a major distro with systemd removed (with broken functionality) or giving up and using systemd.
I suppose you could technically call that "not forcing" on the basis that you made the choice to use Linux in the first place, but... nope. Still being forced.