|
lose a patient on the table and just scream ALEXA PLAY DESPACITO
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Kanye bought Parler, didn't BCC the announcement, doxxed the whole user base: https://twitter.com/TrackInflation/status/1582037239718383616
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Ultraklystron posted:Kanye bought Parler, didn't BCC the announcement, doxxed the whole user base: Tweet's dead but I got the pic:  the free-est of speech!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
I use my HomePod to get the current weather as well. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
tweet was deleted for "violating Twitter rules" presumably for doxxing
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/trackinflation/status/1582041566763708421
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
lmao what a gift on this cursed monday
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
does parler just have a few hundred users or is it just the VIP users that got doxxed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
think it was just the VIPs
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
ymgve posted:does parler just have a few hundred users or is it just the VIP users that got doxxed? every VIP that's been buying their "free" "speech"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
ah it was all the Verified users who got cc'd lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
is this the one that requires a SSN to sign up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
why did they ever settle on 192.168 anyways
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:why did they ever settle on 192.168 anyways apple thread, but, cuz of RFC1918 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
Sniep posted:apple thread, but, cuz of RFC1918 192.168 was assigned by IANA for private use at least as RFC1918’s predecessor RFC1597 was being written, but neither RFC illuminates the reason for choosing those specific address ranges. someone should ask Jon Postel, maybe 10.0.0.0/8 had been allocated for ARPAnet, previously. it was defunct by then, but its addresses had been hard-coded (or widely configured at least) into various pieces of network backbone infrastructure so it couldn’t really be re-issued for public use. made sense to just declare it unfit for public routing and reserve it for “unrouted” private subnets, I guess I dunno about 172.16 or 192.168, but maybe they were just not allocated yet. they were still handing out Bs and contiguous-prefix blocks of Cs pretty freely at that point (note also RFC1627 in which some Sun/SGI/Apple bros whine about the whole idea of private address spaces being impractical and not having IETF consensus. seems that they sorted that out by 1996 because RFC1918 obsoletes that one as well) I dimly recall the migration of various systems to 1918-space when I was working on early-to-me Internet connectivity. prior to that I believe there was a different class A that was known to be unused by its owner and was co-opted by people for their own use. I forget the details of that
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
neat what about the 169.254 dhcp failed subnet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
I think that’s just for link-local/unrouted addressing, so you can only talk to machines on the same media and it can arp-scan its way to finding a free address. it might have some relationship to multicast or rendezvous, or I might be mixing myself up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
haveblue posted:neat https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3927
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
multicast is ... uh, 224.0.0.0/4? Did I do that math right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 06:50
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:multicast is ... uh, 224.0.0.0/4? Did I do that math right? correct. the 240.0.0.0/4 is "not routable not assigned do not use we are ignoring all proposals to activate it don't @ me" every few years someone sends in a proposal to activate 240.0.0.0/4 for unicast routing and every time they point out "literally every OS out there can already do it why have we not done this poo poo yet" and every time it expires without being ratified or whatever because an IOS image from 1997 might not know what to do
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 07:03
|
|
|
same goes for 127.0.0.0/8 really. There are proposals to shrink the loopback address space to 127.0.0.0/16, freeing up another ~16.7 million addresses for unicast routing starting from 127.1.0.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 07:10
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:same goes for 127.0.0.0/8 really. There are proposals to shrink the loopback address space to 127.0.0.0/16, freeing up another ~16.7 million addresses for unicast routing starting from 127.1.0.0 gently caress those ill-considered proposals. Lots of lovely ipv4 address validation code out there (that I wrote) that will crap their pants and raise an error if you declare a host in a reserved space because someone made a mistake that upper management thinks the UI should catch. And lol if you think people are going to make updated firmware to accommodate this crap. Might as well keep pushing for ipv6 rather than try another harebrained scheme to extend the life of ipv4
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:multicast is ... uh, 224.0.0.0/4? Did I do that math right? spankmeister posted:same goes for 127.0.0.0/8 really. There are proposals to shrink the loopback address space to 127.0.0.0/16, freeing up another ~16.7 million addresses for unicast routing starting from 127.1.0.0 it's absolutely gonna break a shitload of middleboxen, it's gonna be glorious and best of all, it won't fix the problem and ipv6 will have turned a quarter of a century old by the time they get even close to any success
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:Might as well keep pushing for ipv6 rather than try another harebrained scheme to extend the life of ipv4
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
mystes posted:Yeah this... If making these changes is likely to break lots of old junk anyway, better to just let ipv4 die and hopefully finally switch to ipv6 my isp still doesn't give me v6 addresses and has zero plans to lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:my isp still doesn't give me v6 addresses and has zero plans to lmao Same. Is there any reason not to do v6 at this point other than straight-up lazyiness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Neito posted:Same. it's like, really hard man 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Neito posted:Same. when my ISP was verizon they were in the process of upgrading everything to support it and had specific timelines published and everything. then they sold this region to frontier and frontier just cancelled all that entirely, i assume because it might cost them tens of dollars
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Neito posted:Same. Big numbers are scary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
FungiCap posted:Big numbers are scary. when no one was looking, ipv6 took 128 bits. it took 128 bits. that's as many as four ipv4s. and that's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
brains posted:when no one was looking, ipv6 took 128 bits. it took 128 bits. that's as many as four ipv4s. and that's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
brains posted:when no one was looking, ipv6 took 128 bits. it took 128 bits. that's as many as four ipv4s. and that's terrible. kermit_bale.gif
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
graphf_slur.png
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
brains posted:when no one was looking, ipv6 took 128 bits. it took 128 bits. that's as many as four ipv4s. and that's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Neito posted:Same. expensive network equipment costs are still being amortized and I guess cheap equipment isn't compatible with ipv6 yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/18/russia_china_semiconductro_failure_rates/ *taps head* Can't break into the network if the net don't work! Cybersecurity! Bring back sneakernet
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
it would be wild if it turns out that the global supply of raspberry pi was actually being funneled to russia because it's loads more dependable than relying on iffy riscV solutions that still need kinks to work out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
sb hermit posted:expensive network equipment costs are still being amortized and I guess cheap equipment isn't compatible with ipv6 yet no it just takes a lot of work to configure everything properly, and most people don't care at all because their internet works just fine behind CG-NAT
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
The answer to ipv4 woes is always just another layer of NAT! I'm legitimately wondering if we will ever see mass IPv6 adoption in our lifetimes and I'm not even that old. Using a VM that NAT's through my host machine, which NAT's through my home router, which NAT's through my carrier level. FungiCap fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Oct 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
FungiCap posted:The answer to ipv4 woes is always just another layer of NAT! cellular radios basically all get ipv6 in the us now at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2022 19:49
|
|
