> even if the client had passed a value it would have still done exactly the same thing, as the value of "v" (or anything from the request) is not used in that block
If they passed in any value, they would have entered the block and returned early with the results of FetchPrefixesPendingDeletion.
From the post:
> this was implemented as part of a regularly running sub-task that checks for BYOIP prefixes that should be removed, and then removes them.
They expected to drop into the block of code above, but since they didn't, they returned all routes.
We had the same experience going ~800mi in a day (each way; so we did this twice). We also had 3 kids in the car, so 5 people total... or to put it another way, approximately 500% more people in our EV than the big SUVs driving next to us.
A guy at one stop in TX was in a huge Excursion and was walking his dog near the charger, laughed and said "you're going to be here a while." We were in and out before he was. The FUD is extremely strong still. Our drive (CO to North TX) has to be one of the least populated (and anti-EV) drives in America and there was still no range or charge speed anxiety.
My attorney friends tell me that the FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law. (My poor paraphrasing, not theirs.)
I've been surprised I haven't seen this mentioned on social media or in the news. Are my friends wrong, or are people celebrating because this is just a step in the right direction even if it may not do anything yet?
> Because they would then trade those like carbon offsets or find away to ignore them/workaround them for a market advantage.
Isn't that the point?
I'm not arguing (or not arguing) for this solution, but charging people the cost of cleanup and allowing them to "ignore them/workaround them for a market advantage" seems like an improvement on the status quo? Because the local government collecting the tax would now have funds to put toward the solution. This is classic internalizing of what were externalities.
> how do you make sure the boot has not been compromised and that you are not just sending the password to the bad guys?
In my case, I can't. This is a NAS in my house and this is mostly to prevent me from having to go to another room and plug in a monitor and keyboard. (Also, I've done this from across the country after a power outage.)
The threat vectors I'm protecting against are I guess mostly theft of the entire machine, or forgetting to wipe the drives when I eventually toss them out. Mostly, it's just fun practice because I'm a nerd and every drive should be encrypted.
For my use-case, the auto-unlock-by-polling-a-specific-LAN-IP linked in this thread would probably be fine, for example.
All fair, I guess I just landed on mkinitcpio-tinyssh first and it was my introduction to the idea, and only took a few seconds to setup. I'll switch to openssh if I ever have issues, but this has been working fine for many years, so I'm no rush.
tinyssh is great. One use case for it that people may not know about: using it during Linux boot so you can remotely unlock encrypted drives. I have a headless NAS server that uses dm-crypt/LUKS under ZFS. When I update my kernel/ZFS I remotely reboot the server, wait a few seconds, and then ssh into a tinyssh powered encryption key prompt to unlock the drives. (I am immediately booted from ssh, as tinyssh exits.) I can then ssh again a few seconds later and I'm hitting openssh on a fully booted machine that wasn't able to open the drives without my intervention.
To maybe help defuse: it looks to me like dntrkv was actually agreeing with you (and talking about dereg's post), but it seems like you misunderstood, and then alex_young probably misread you as being dereg given your reply.
This is a great list. I'm going to ride your coat tails with some of my favorites. I'm a father of 3 little ones, FWIW.
- Take all parenting advice with a grain of salt, everyone's sample size is too low.
- (Related) Each kid is very different. It's kind of wild how different they are and mine are still very little.
- By default you're likely to raise your kids as the average of how you and your spouse were raised. If either of you didn't like your upbringing you probably want to consider some kind of outside help to change your course sooner rather than later.
- OP said "It hasn't really sunk in yet" -- I just wanted to say this was the same for me. For all three kids! I was aware my wife was pregnant but it never really clicked until the baby was there.
- Months 1-3 were my least favorite. A tiny infant is a sort of alien, and very fragile. Somewhere around 3-6 months they'll look at you and smile and your heart will melt.
You're effectively saying my family (in a city) should keep paying to make your life equivalent cost to a city life. I'm saying your life should come with the full cost of the burden it bears, that's all. We'll still have farming communities and beach towns but they can price their externalities in.
As an aside, it's a wild stretch to pull the national park system and state beaches into "I, one person, prefer to have multiple acres to myself", as if these programs exist so that you can live X many miles away from anything, for free.
Forgive me, if your rural land is on a major interstate then I definitely agree! For every branch off that major arterial the road becomes more and more specific to a few number of people, who rarely pay the full cost of the road/utilities that service them.
> It makes no sense to further incentivize moving to cities
I'm not asking for any incentives. I'm asking to stop sending my money to highway expansion, road repair and other services to people who live very sparsely. Let them pay for the extension (and maintenance) of service themselves, and then they can decide whether they would "rather" live there.
The problem is that rural and suburban living is heavily subsidized in relation to urban living, which has economies of scale. This doesn't even factor in things like per-capita pollution. If people who would "rather" live a certain way actually paid their fair share (i.e. for negative externalities) it'd be a different story.
Huh, I think the condos downtown "wipe out" a lot less of the river (they're not even that close to the river, there's a whole hike and bike trail between them and the river...?) than all of the single family detached homes right up against the river that go on for mile after mile upstream (literally for cities-worth of land!).
And without downtown, I don't know what your view or skyline would be of, other than an empty blue sky, of which 99.99% of Texas offers you that, if you want it.
Oh well, like you said, NIMBYism is certainly a thing.
If they passed in any value, they would have entered the block and returned early with the results of FetchPrefixesPendingDeletion.
From the post:
> this was implemented as part of a regularly running sub-task that checks for BYOIP prefixes that should be removed, and then removes them.
They expected to drop into the block of code above, but since they didn't, they returned all routes.