My first thought was that they were an LLM, but then checking their profile it seems they've been around since 2012 and have a comment expressing that they seem to get accused of being an LLM a lot, and suggesting people don't do that.
> Quite soon these accusations will nearly always be accurate.
/headscratching They don't have to be, do they? It is possible that some people will build identity systems with norms that e.g. humans type with their own hands. These could become popular, at least conceivably, in certain areas. Hard to enforce for sure. And getting harder and harder to distinguish reliably.
Just split the address into two 32-bit chunks (call the top word the "pool", bottom word "address") and assign the full IPV4 range to pool 0x00000000. Done.
But then think about what the routing tables would look like, how would an IPv4-only host find an IPv6 host not in pool 0? You'd be reinventing NAT, but in a less-structured context than how NAT works today. There's more issues to it too.
If it was really that simple they would have done exactly that. "Just adding more bits to IPv4" just isn't possible to do backwards-compatibly. IPv6 is the closest you can get to that while also dealing with the complexity that arises with longer addresses.
Until you upgrade every router between 2 hosts so that it understands the IPv4b addressing scheme, those 2 hosts can't talk. And if you're going to upgrade them all anyway, then might as well do it right.
That doesn't change anything - until everyone adopts the new chunk nobody can use it (even one windows XP machine that you don't personally care about is enough to still kill it today). IPv6 is better because at least it can work side by side by IPv6.
It's actually traditionally 1 cup exactly here (scoop a measuring cup out of the rice cooker per plate). Most people in my house are 2-3x daily, I'm 1-2x daily because I didn't grow up eating rice (I prefer bread). We have 2 rice cookers going at dinner because 1 one is for the dogs exclusively.
Honestly I really like CloudFlare as a business. There's no vendor lock-in, just a genuine good product.
If they turn around later and do something evil, literally all I need to do is change the nameserver to a competitor and the users of my website won't even notice.
Then you're not using any of their services besides DNS, at which point you don't need to use Cloudflare at all.
As soon as you turn on any other service they offer, you need to actively migrate away. It's an inherent issue of services that actually provide a benefit. If you're saying "I can just migrate to any other nameserver" then you're telling me you have no use for Cloudflare in the first place. Because if you did, you couldn't just not use it anymore.
Let's say you're using their WAF. Sure, you can just change your domain's nameserver and you've migrated away. But now you no longer have a WAF. Same for their CDN. Or their load balancer. Or their object storage. Or their CAPTCHAs.
I think they also lock you into their DNS when you buy a domain from them, unlike other registrars who allow to change your NS freely. Sure, you can just transfer the domain elsewhere for a small price, but the point is they go the extra mile to force their NS, which I havent seen with other registrars.
I think the problem is that older SDK versions allowed you to do things like scan local WiFi names to get location data, without requiring the location permission.
So bad actors would just target lower SDK versions and ignore the privacy improvements
The newer Android version could simply give empty data (for example, location is 0,0 latitude longitude, there are no visible WiFi networks), when the permission is missing and an app on the old SDK version requests it.
Of course, they don't like this because then apps can't easily refuse to work if not allowed to spy.
Phone companies are required to make sure 911 works on their phones. Random people on the internet aren't required to make sure 911 works on random apps, even if they look like phones.
I feel like the point isn't "there should be a touch screen MacBook" but more "holy shit we simulated a working touch screen by looking at reflections coming off the glass, isn't that cool".
I just looked up Apple Care. Costs $449 AUD (~$300 USD) for 3 years of coverage on a MacBook Pro.
A quick search shows that it's ~$500-$600 to fix the screen if it does break; I didn't bother looking up the keyboard but I'd assume it's much, much less.
So basically, on the off chance that your MacBook does shit the bed in the most expensive way, you save ~$150 or so? But in the almost-certain case that your Macbook is fine, you're down $450?
>A quick search shows that it's ~$500-$600 to fix the screen if it does break; I didn't bother looking up the keyboard but I'd assume it's much, much less.
_The_ point of that the article you're commenting on, is that a keyboard replacement on a MacBook is very expensive. Why would you make that assumption?
The "most expensive way" to shit the bed is also not the peripherals of the computer dying, it's the logic board giving up the ghost.
I'm a repair tech - hence made some assumptions that the author did not make.
Have done riveted keyboards on non-Mac machines before and would be surprised if an independent shop charged more than about $150 USD for it. It's not that hard to do.
You're right about the logic board being an extremely expensive fix, but it's also significantly less common than something like a keyboard, USB port, speaker or screen.
This is also something extremely Australian-specific, but consumer guarantees would probably cover any logic board damage within the first 1-3 years anyway, regardless of AppleCare warranty.
What if your screen breaks or logic board? Top of the line MacBooks cost ~4-5k. I recently had to service a battery and they replaced a top case and a keyboard free of charge. I will continue paying for AppleCare as long as they will allow me
I run into bugs every day. It wakes, and has a black screen not wallpaper. Change spaces and the focus is wrong for half a second. Login screen is a pain because it collapses all users together. Notifications don’t scroll if they stop scrolling when the cursor is over a gap between them. Something on the system constantly eats disk space, and I think it’s the system updates. If I dock two apps in one space, sometimes one is black. If I zoom out to the Spaces overview it shows fine in the preview though. In the Terminal if I close a tab it can focus an entirely different window.
I could go on for hours. It’s a buggy mess these days and I miss Lion and Snow Leopard desperately.
Yes, these got a lot worse after Tahoe. The past few versions have all had issues on multiple machines.
None of this sounds like a hardware error. Something like notification scrolling is simple bad programming and bad QA. You scroll the list of them, but when the mouse cursor ends up on a gap between them, the new scroll event doesn't apply. They're all individual even though shown together.
Or a black screen on wake - that has the mouse cursor and login prompt, it just sometimes doesn't load the wallpaper or does it slowly. Not hardware - just something buggy. It's unbelievable when I compare to Leopard or whichever version it was introduced the rotating 'cube' of login screens, which always had wallpaper and loaded fast. Here we are fifteen years later with incredibly better hardware and the thing lags.
Nothing mentioned in the previous comment is indicative of a hardware problem. If you think I'm wrong, please describe a plausible mechanism to cause any of the problems described above. They all are plausibly software bugs. I mean, Apple hardware is not really any better than any other piece of fallible hardware, and their OS has been a buggy mess since Apple DOS. Most pieces of software as large as an OS are buggy in many ways, and Apple has not been proven to be the exception.
Honestly, HN has a lot of people getting infuriated by storms in teacups and spouting shit. Definitely an order of magnitude better than Reddit or Facebook but still not the same as IRL.
