Makes it hard to do hole punching I think? At any rate, direct connections currently cannot be established between multi-hop peers, traffic gets routed through peers instead. I think this has something to do with the TCP choice.
Yeaaah. TCP hole punching is goofy and unreliable, last I checked. You have to do some arcane ritual of having both peers start a three-way handshake to each others’s public endpoints simultaneously, relying on NATs to accept inbound SYN packets if they match the outgoing SYN. And nobody’s NAT devices implement simultaneous-open the same way, so all your connections just fail.
Naturally this leads to slapping even more arcane fixes on top of that, like NAT port assignment oracles to adversarial interoperate with different port allocation strategies (random, sequential, single, etc.) by analyzing patterns in previous port assignments. Networking sucks.
If the new technology referenced in the comic provides a way to securely connect, including auditing, I don't see how it applies to the hole punching hack.
People (like ISPs offering routers) set up NAT, often justifying it on the basis of security. Application developers use hole-punching techniques to get past NAT (including stuff like UPnP that requires cooperation from the NAT).
The end product is:
#1 A sandboxing system that cannot reliably sandbox.
#2 A connection system that cannot reliably connect.
NAT is not a security measure but a way to save on IP space or avoid remaking a topology on network addresses changes. For actual security you need a firewall
> At any rate, direct connections currently cannot be established between multi-hop peers, traffic gets routed through peers instead. I think this has something to do with the TCP choice.
Yggdrasil is designed for physical links and multi-hop routing first and foremost. Internet peering is just a way to test/use/join the network until then.
Both tailscale (partially open source) and nebula (entirely open source, you have to host the "lighthouses" which assist in NAT punching yourself) do this. (Also tinc.)
Yggdrasil is basically researching a replacement for BGP, so hole punching isn't a priority. (There is a 3rd party project that does something like this for Yggdrasil, but nebula is probably the better fully open source option.)
If only there was some technology that would allow every peer to have its globally unique address, making direct connections only a matter of firewalls.
I don't know, something like IPv4, but with more addresses...
I think this is a pragmatic choice. NAT Hole Punching can be hit or miss no matter the method but doing peer routing guarantees even a client that can only initiate outbound connections can route packets. It can be slow though.
I also know there's support for other transports like QUIC but TCP is the main default.
Can you elaborate on this comment? What should popular biologists like Michael Levin be saying on every podcast/interview and why? Serious question from someone who is familiar with Lynn Margulis but not Michael Levin.
It's arguably the most glaring element of background context I can imagine, there's a reason people are mentioning it. Just because it's not ready to compete right now, in the medium-long term it's looking like a flat out alternative to ARM. ARM wants their slice of the money now because this decade could easily end up being peak ARM times. Sell high.
This is an insightful comment, though it just goes to show how rigid the framing is of "natural vs. artificial" or "human vs. machine". None of this stuff has any vitality outside of _some_ relationship or interface with people.
Yeah, it makes the owner class richer while driving the marginal cost of labor to zero, at which point the working class can't sell their labor at all and starve.
This would assume the rich some how oppresses everyone to pieces. If I have access to all this wonderful automation tech, I'm sure as fuck not going to sit around and starve, I'm going to try automate my food production to make more food, more efficiently ?
> If I have access to all this wonderful automation tech
But "you" don't, that is precisely the point. The speed at which the gap between rich and poor grows keeps increasing, after all -- the rest is commentary --, and people who right now send people to die and murder in wars for oil, and what not not, will not suddenly start sharing when they fully captured all means of production for good. That's like hoping the person who keeps stealing your shit every chance he has, leaving you in sickness or death without a thought will give you a billion dollars once all the locks on your house have rusted off completely and you no longer have means to call the police.
In a hostile landscape, the state exists to protect its people. If you have a weak head of state, you will very quickly not have a state at all. Bullies, weapons, power. It's not pleasant or delightful, but it is necessary.
> Bullies, weapons, power. It's not pleasant or delightful, but it is necessary.
At least some are honest and know that the power affords an escalation in hostilities which oft times are far beyond "necessary".
I lied to myself, and a favor to you readers, when I repeatedly wrote "Israel destroyed" or "the IDF bombed". I should have written "Your cousin destroyed", "Your friend from high school bombed", "Your colleague aimed and snipered". And so on.
The mask of crimes unfolded here is not so trivial, a huge part of the Israeli public takes part in it, and as we know from the first days, hundreds and thousands of them also document themselves in the act, and many others openly call for their extermination. But the majority is not so arrogant and explicit; The majority simply enlists for hundreds of days of reserve "because the country needs to be protected", goes and commits crimes unconsciously, half-consciously, with a silenced and suppressed conscience.
There are a thousand other reasons and excuses, but again, all the reasons and excuses crumble in front of 16 thousand dead children, of which 3,000 people under the age of 5, identified by their names and ID numbers, are crumbling in the face of the destruction of all civilian infrastructure, which does not and cannot have a purely military purpose.
Because they are trained to be good at playing political game, being ruthless, and making hard choices... that and having deep connections to other ruthless people is really helpful at undermining / discrediting / fracturing / eliminating the opposition. I would say most of the world is doing a serviceable job at not having people like that in power.
I feel that the western world's capitalist/industrial system has done an excellent job of providing people like this opportunities to go become powerful or whatever it is they enjoy, without causing undue suffering. It's a lot better for a ruthless dictator personality to be in the role of Steve Jobs or Bezos or Musk, instead of getting redirected to politics and doing things along the lines of Stalin or Mao.
>It's a lot better for a ruthless dictator personality to be in the role of Steve Jobs or Bezos or Musk, instead of getting redirected to politics and doing things along the lines of Stalin or Mao.
This is a rather bizarre thing to say given the trajectory both Bezos and Musk's lives (and arguably even Jobs') have taken.
If you've watched someone use restraint but sometimes that restraint seems to lead to bad consequences, then it can be a relief to see them finally lose restraint. E.g. the good guy who never kills the bad guy, and the bad guy escapes prison to do more harm (a classic comic book trope). Eventually the audience just wants the "good guy" to kill the bad guy.
There is also an element of vicarious power fantasy, experiencing the thrill of doing what you want, getting away with it, and (in the case of political actors) being lauded for it. The positive association is not with the consequences of the action, but with the action itself. This is the nature of the seed of authoritarianism, and unfortunately it shares DNA with lots of good qualities so it cannot be entirely eradicated.
What's the logic of the first sentence? I can't parse it - is that it should be illegal for intelligence agents to be heads of state? Or is it that states with powerful armies shouldn't have former intelligence agents as heads of state? Or what?
As for the second question - why is every generation of the left charmed by a different set of psychopathic terrorist groups?
People don't realize how powerful applied math (especially in the areas you've mentioned) has become. Same tools can be applied to people in the ad tech/social media.
reply