Modern datacenters use local power generation that means lots of bad pollution worse than most factories. There is really bad sound pollution from many of them. They are enormous and create barriers where people should be able to move around.
You can solve this issue if you have one server with ipv6/ipv4 you can run NAT with Jool and connect ipv6 only servers to that. Like Android does.
I wish hosting providers would give you a local routed ipv4 on ipv6 servers with a default NAT server. It is not that expensive I move 10Gbps "easily" and they could charge for that traffic.
30 USD/month and 0.045 USD/GB for ingress it is ok if you are big. It is a cheap service to build yourself. I do feel the pain of it being hard to get IPv4 minimal connectivity on ipv6 only hosts, i.e. for me a 1 USD/GB would be fine.
Those are still per-customer and require you to dedicate an entire IP address to it. That's overkill for a server which mostly talks over ipv6 but needs to connect to an ipv4-only service like Github once in a blue moon.
Not backing up cloud is a good default. I have had people complain about performance when they connected to our multiple TB shared drive because their backup software fetched everything. There are of course reasons to back that up I am not belittling that, but not for people who want temporary access to some 100GB files i.e. most people in my situation.
The concept does not really exist it is a Windows thing. You could call Puppet or other config managements group policies, but Linux is not a monolith so it is more organic.
You are not required to accept anything other than digital ids. So from experience, whatever demands euid has will be what is required to identify you.
There are about 3000 deaths per year in Sweden attributed to position from cars, and 300 physical accidents. So it is a really big issue, but it is almost impossible to make people understand that their car use and modification mains people.
Modified cars can release 1000x more polution, on streets with 800 daily cars that will have an affect.
You can ban modifying your car to pollute more (which we do) without banning modifying your car.
This isn't complicated FFS.
The difficulty against this in the US is the unfortunate reality that the people coming to these shops to enable their stupid trucks to roll coal are the people who should technically be raiding and shutting down these companies. This can be fixed.
Physically, you can already modify your car to be controlled by a stupid program and that has been possible since at least the 90s. You can do the supposed harm by not being aware of damage to your exhaust system.
The solution to exhaust harms of ICE engines is electric cars, not a reduction in consumer rights.
The EPA heavily regulates any emissions defeat devices. The problem is they spend most of their time going after tuner shops where most cars run on ethanol rather than diesel shops who cater to brain-damaged customers who think rolling coal is "cool"
In Spain (but I think in every EU country) you must go through legal inspection and certification if you do modify your car. And most of the aftermarket mods people install are totally illegal and would not pass that exam. I mean changes like putting a spoiler, lowering the height from ground etc
It's not whataboutism, it's a legitimate question. How does it increase safety on the road to reject local SSH connections by a dumb user, when that same user can mess with the car physically?
Simplest example: a driver could probably disable attentive driving checks by pasting a script in from a web search in a few minutes. Nothing like an inattentive 3750 lbs weapon.
Yeah and they could hire a professional driver or a engineer and IPO for billions a life sized driving AI powered crypto robot too. Look, like clearly google + ctrl-v scripting or running an one click deployment exe on your computer on a whim is different than physically ordering/picking up something and then installing it into a vehicle?
Of course they're different, but you're trying to argue that the former takes objectively less effort than the latter, and it doesn't. One or the other may take less effort depending on who you are and what you know.
There is some kind of middle ground here.. My first HTML file still renders like it did on Mosaic. The HTTP server I used back then still works today 35 years later without maintenance. I do agree that HTTPS is a simple solution but there is too much cargo cult around it. Honestly I do not see the use to maintain everything published if you follow sane practices.
EDIT: I have 15 year old things at work that do not compile, you have to maintain it for sure, biggest problem is cryptography. I am not sure that unstable tech should be part of the application ever.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, your HTTP server from 35 years ago is still working today without any maintenance?
Does that mean no security patching and no updates for bugfixes? or does "no maintenance" means something else I'm missing?
I find it difficult to discuss these topics when comments like these pretend that you can leave your system exposed on the internet for years without any maintenance.
If we're talking applications that don't actively listen on the internet that's fine, and I would agree that we should have complete software that just works.
But a webserver, unless it's for personal/home use, it's on the internet and I don't see how it could work for 35 years without any update/change
Static html webservers don't really have any need for security patching or bugfixes constantly like dynamic complex stuff. They literally can just live forever. The sites themselves are just files. Not applications.
reply