Just read this article.

It was fun.

> Crawlers can still start an arbitrary number of parallel crawls, but each one costs to start and needs to stay below some rate limit.

This is a nice explanation. It's much clearer than anything I've seen offered by Anubis’s authors, in terms of why or how it could be effective at preventing a site from being ravaged by hordes of ill-behaved bots.

During the early age of scientific inquiry in Europe, very few human travelers were following the white stork's migration route (Europe→Anatolia→Levant→Nile→East Africa), and I'd guess that most of those who did were from the Muslim world and not particularly accessible to European observers.

The small number of long-distance travelers and cultural contacts between the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Europe did result in lots of valuable learning; this particular bit of learning just took a while.

Plot twist: sometimes both.

Yeah, the article completely lost me at this point.

A somewhat-interesting, though simplistic, discussion of congestion control in TCP.

And then… "but don't worry, QUIC is magic, and it doesn't need any of this.”

No. No it's not. QUIC is not magic and it basically changes nothing in terms of congestion control.

Does Wikipedia/Wikimedia have any facilities in the UK? I assume it does have some paid employees based there.

How would/could the UK enforce this law against WP/WM if they simply didn't obey it?

If you read the paper, you'll find there are many improbable occurrences, rather than just this one.

> > We show that 3I/ATLAS approaches surprisingly close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter, with a probability of ≲ 0.005% > > a) What does this even mean? If you throw a dart on a dartboard, anywhere it lands will have some probability. 1/200 doesn't seem that low.

Not 1 in 200 here. 1 in 20,000.

You're saying that Rogers personnel now have non-Rogers SIM cards?

I’m surprised the CTO on holiday didn’t have a sat phone.

I'm in the industry, though not a CTO. Nobody [that I know, on the tech side] has a sat phone.

I mean, incredibly critical personnel probably should be! There may only be a few dozen such people, but I wouldn't want the added chaos caused in the event of a Rogers outage if I couldn't get in touch with the key decision makers and most critical operations engineers because of the very outage they're meant to fix. And in the e-sim era that is hopefully very cheap and without any real downsides.

The '22 Rogers outage, hah. As I recall it didn't affect me at all since I was at home and work in Vancouver all day… but it was a great excuse for not responding to workplace on-call messages which I got in the evening

> Well, their towers were sorta up (as they couldn’t remotely turn them off since the network was down), so if you had a Rogers SIM, a call to 9-1-1 wouldn’t failover to other networks because the device made just enough of a handshake to try and fail on the Rogers network. A flaw in GSM I reckon.

Didn't know that part, amazing.

It sounds kind of like connecting to a WiFi access point which has a broken/non-working uplink to the Internet. Modern smartphones pretty much automatically detect and avoid such APs, and indeed the whole SSID if they need to, but it sounds like the stuck-in-1985 2G baseband layer has no equivalent connectivity check.

45 minutes later, another reply here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44674209) suggests that Vodafone and O2 are indeed experiencing issues.

When this happens in Canada (usually a Rogers outage), the other networks seem to have a hard time dealing with the extra load.

Only for roaming customers though. Here in Europe a customer in their home country can only use their home network unless they're calling emergency services. Only when roaming multiple options would be available.

So I wouldn't expect all that much extra load really.