This is veering into pedantry, but from what I can understand of that setting (I'm not a sysadmin guy but have used MACsec on embedded stuff), that's just as much of an 802.1X feature as a MACsec feature.
Sure the switch will only accept encrypted L2 traffic...but that encrypted link is set up via MKA, which is a part of the 802.1X standard. If you don't have 802.1X authenticating the endpoint, you don't have MKA setting up the encrypted link between that endpoint and the switch and you don't have MACsec.
So if you're trying to prevent a bad guy from getting on your LAN, you need 802.1X, whereas MACsec is an optional extra (a very useful extra if you're worried about MITM attacks). But 802.1X is still doing the heavy lifting w.r.t access control.
You run MACsec either with 802.1X, or with your switch vendor's favorite color of proprietary switch-to-switch 802.1X replacement. MACsec without 802.1X [or equivalent] is a bit like TLS without certificates. It exists in a few places because some people have really weird custom requirements (TLS with pre-shared keys… TLS with NULL encryption…) but those things shouldn't drive a discussion outside their special usage areas.
In that sense: MACsec implies and requires 802.1X. Exceptions confirm the rule.
Even if it's not some staggering triumph of human achievement, I'd argue that Ozempic (etc.) is similar. A magic weight loss drug has always captured the public's imagination, and it feels like I've been hearing about new weight loss drug studies in the news for my entire life that never went anywhere.
I think this is more relevant. Like everything, most games today are optimized to maximize engagement and keep people with low attention spans hooked. There are plenty of intelligent people who could invest a bunch of time into solving a puzzle but just don't care to.
I remember playing Myst as a not-particularly-bright grade schooler and banging my head against puzzles for weeks without making any progress. It wasn't some great intellectual challenge -- I was just bored and didn't have any other games to play. I can't imagine I would have stuck with it if I could have watched YouTube or played Fortnite instead.
I never looked into the guts of how this was implemented, but I worked on a product which had an SNMPv3 agent that was only restricted by a username and password. I could flash a PC with a fresh Ubuntu image, apt install Net-SNMP and start sending SNMPv3 requests without every futzing with any keys.
If I remember right, handling SNMPv3 traps required some messy key stuff so the agent still sent SNMPv2 traps, but there was no requirement for keys for GET/SET.
I'm 6'6" and I basically treat an exit row upgrade as non-negotiable. It's just a fundamental cost of long haul travel for me if I can't swing premium economy or business class.
To get some extra legroom, I paid (round trip, in CAD) $250 for a trip to Dublin this year and $320 for a trip to Hong Kong in 2023. That's a lot of money, but it was <50% of the cost to upgrade to premium economy and <20% of the cost to upgrade to business class.
This used to be much cheaper. I remember paying ~$100 for similar upgrades a decade ago, but airlines got wise to this at some point and jacked the prices way up.
This isn't totally dead. I missed a flight last year and got bumped to a flight the next morning on some weird ticket class where I didn't get a seat assignment until the gate. The gate agent was able to give me a bulkhead seat with extra legroom at no cost. And this was with United, not some airline with a shining reputation for customer service.
So you can roll the dice and try to get a premium seat at the gate, but that's not a risk I'm usually willing to take.
I don’t have any data to back this up, but I think window and aisle seats being more valuable doesn’t necessarily mean they can be sold for more.
I am very tall and I always pay for a seat with extra legroom in economy. Whenever I’m picking my seat early, almost every seat in economy is available. People could pay to reserve a window or aisle seat, but anecdotally it seems like almost no one does this. Everyone I know just tries to check in as early as possible so they can grab a good seat before they’re all taken.
I don’t think airlines are actually losing any money by seating families together. It’s not like all those window and aisle seats would have been paid for otherwise.
I applied for a management-consulting-ish job a decade ago (I was desperate!) at a big firm and had to take what was basically an IQ test. I have no idea if the test literally calculated my IQ, but the questions were exactly the questions you'd see in an IQ test (e.g. next item in some geometric sequence) so it may as well have.
This was in a group interview for recent university graduates at a very big company. I assume their hiring process was pretty standardized, so there were probably thousands of people taking this test every year in North America.
Was this professionally or in school? I still did this in an EE program 15 years ago and I can't imagine things have changed since then. I think kids still have to do lots of ugly math in EE classes.
I wasn't making point about mathematics qua mathematics. Was thinking that if I were doing EE undergrad today, I'd use SageMath or Mathematica to crunch the mechanical algebraic manipulations involved in doing a z-transform.
If you're pulling the datasheet from the vendor website, you can also skim the list of documentation and see if there are any application notes available for the part.
For more "complicated" parts (e.g. lots of signals, high frequency, high power, etc.), integrating the part into a board design isn't necessarily straightforward. Rather than putting a ton of detail in the datasheet, the vendor will sometimes have an entirely separate document with design guidelines for the part.
This question is sorta similar to "Why don't distros enable restrictive MAC policies by default"
Maintainers _could_ take the time to lock down sshd and limit the damage it can do if exploited, but there are costs associated with that:
1. Upfront development cost
2. Maintenance cost from handling bug reports (lots of edge cases for users)
3. Maintenance cost from keeping this aligned with upstream changes
You could extend this argument and say that distros shouldn't bother with _any_ security features, but part of the job of a distro maintainer is to strike a balance here, and similar to SELinux / AppArmor / whatever, most mainstream desktop distro maintainers probably don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
Sure the switch will only accept encrypted L2 traffic...but that encrypted link is set up via MKA, which is a part of the 802.1X standard. If you don't have 802.1X authenticating the endpoint, you don't have MKA setting up the encrypted link between that endpoint and the switch and you don't have MACsec.
So if you're trying to prevent a bad guy from getting on your LAN, you need 802.1X, whereas MACsec is an optional extra (a very useful extra if you're worried about MITM attacks). But 802.1X is still doing the heavy lifting w.r.t access control.