Get back to me in 10 years, when it has 230k miles on it and hasn’t needed a single major repair - like my 2013 Sienna. I’ve got several friends who own independent repair shops, and all agree that if everyone owned a Toyota they would have no business.
Funny how people are willing to deny benefits to others while claiming different benefits for themselves. Me thinks you'd feel differently if, say, a fund were created to compensate people for consuming PFASs (which you undoubtedly have). Or, maybe not.
Regardless, I think it's important to be consistent: If you deny benefits to others, then don't accept them yourself.
Maine, Vermont, Iowa all havae higher total tax burdens than California. New York, however is #1. On the other hand, New York City is THE place to be to find fame and fortune in any number of professions. Finance, the arts, fashion all come to mind immediately.
This bill is a gift to the Russians and the Chinese! Now they will be able to read anyone's communications, and do you think they are going to stop encrypting their communications?
Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase liberally) said the Golden Rule was not enough to decide if an action was ethical or not. One also had to answer in a positive way the question, "What would happen if everyone behaved this way?" So, Sam Altman, what if everyone lived by your 13 lessons?
There is not a shred of humanity here. It's all about money, money, and more money. Think about what the world would be like if everyone, and I mean everyone, only valued money. (Ironically, money in and of itself has no value.) I don't think cutthroat would begin to describe that world.
Interestingly, native Americans disparaged Europeans because they were addicted to money. For native Americans, time spent with friends and family was more important than money. Almost all the native Americans who went to Europe returned to native America, and likewise the Europeans who had once lived among native Americans, then went back to Europe, returned to native America.
Colin Shaw said, "Every generation has something they regret. The generation before me was smoking. My generation is obesity. I worry that this generation is about the lack of social interaction and having your head down at a screen rather than talking." I think he's wrong: it's artificial intelligence that we will regret.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I don't expect to live much beyond a decade. I do feel immensely sorry for my kids, though, and I do hope the world will hold Sam Altman personally responsible for the harm I think he has unleashed.
The AI revolution is not going to end well, starting with the AI-powered hatred that will be spewed before the 2024 election and then continuing with AI-powered monitoring of every microsecond of a person's life. 1984 will be paradise by comparison.
All that might be true, but, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra (unlikely; Niels Bohr is more likely).
> pfsync is a computer protocol used to synchronise firewall states between machines running Packet Filter (PF) for high availability. It is used along with CARP to make sure a backup firewall has the same information as the main firewall. When the main machine in the firewall cluster dies, the backup machine is able to accept current connections without loss.
Pf is included in FreeBSD and macOS, and by extension pfsense. But it's worth noting that they've all diverged to varying degrees so you've gotta be careful in terms of syntax and features.
For fun I've been monkeying around with a friendly pf library in everyone's favorite language, and the differences between bit me a few times… although it looks like FreeBSD-current is starting to work towards convergence. It's a really powerful tool, it'll let you write rules conditional on an OS fingerprint, handle a bunch of traffic normalization… but it's also been a reminder about how much I dislike C APIs (obviously most folks are going to be using pfctl which is just fine and dandy).
> the smart kids have moved onto opensense now though
Sadly OPNsense is just another highly opinionated mess, just like pfSense now. The are things what are done better in OPNsense but overall the UI is worse than atrocious.
I'm trying to use it for more than 3 years, but as soon as I need something more than a very basic ruleset - things go south.
Agreed. Personally, what {pf,open}sense add aren't worth not just running pf/pfsync/carp on straight OpenBSD. Yes...no flashy GUI, but it's all well documented.
Well, the thing is what I like what they have WebGUI, especially if I'm not the only one who would use it. But it's almost amusing on how they both overcomplicate the things, instead of (at least) giving me a checkmark to stop being 'user-friendly'.
The lack of necessities (eg pre-populated RFC1918 networks in the aliases, or extreamly common things, like AD ports list) or a 'session' view which defaults to seven states in OPNsense is just an icing on the top.
ADD: forgot, those stupid CSS animations in OPN. Not only they are stupid and slow, I'm almost never access the WebGUI directly, so I'm forced to watch every frame to be sent on the net.
It's like they are never ever dogfooding their own products, except their local, small labs.
ADD2: I hated ISA Server with a passion, for it being an overcomplicated mess. But 20 years later I would gave my month supply of pumpkin latte to just have an easy way to work with network groups and high level network abstractions.
Well, yeah...you made my point. I'll take a well documented, easy to work with and reason about, easy to debug, text configuration over a crappy GUI any day of the week.
http://man.openbsd.org/pfsync has more details. This is interesting, I also didn't know of its existence. That said, I've never had to administer multiple failover firewalls so my interest is purely out of curiosity.
"carp" should also be included in discoveries alongside pfsync. carp functions like cisco/juniper/etc VRRP to enable real-time failover. With pfsync being a stateful firewall a lot of care needs to happen with failovers. carp + pfsync allow you to run multiple hot pfsync firewalls that have synchronized state and have near-instant failover without state-related hiccups.
We use pf+pfsync+carp extensively over in FreeBSD.org as well. It's good stuff!
I understand telling people to "just google it" or "read the fine manual" on support forums where the same repetitive questions are asked a million times, but on hacker news? Why? What is wrong with asking a question that is of interest to the average reader of this thread? What's wrong with conversation?
Just today I failed to find an example of mounting multiple drives as one Btrfs filesystem. Plenty of how to create Btrfs filesystem examples. But how to mount them? Crickets. I eventually figured it out, but at a large cost in time.
I think you just wasted a lot of time looking for complexity that you wrongly expected to exist. When I google "btrfs mount multiple device", two of the top three results include exactly the example you needed to see (and probably skipped over believing it couldn't be that simple), and the other one indirectly explains what's going on by discussing the necessity of a btrfs scan when using multiple devices (and how to construct an fstab entry if your boot process doesn't do a btrfs scan).
For the record: to mount a multiple device btrfs filesystem, use an ordinary mount command with any one of the block devices that are part of the file system. Every device contains information about what other devices are supposed to be part of that filesystem.
I'm not sure if there are any techniques documentation writers can use to avoid this "hiding in plain sight" kind of problem.
> For the record: to mount a multiple device btrfs filesystem, use an ordinary mount command with any one of the block devices that are part of the file system. Every device contains information about what other devices are supposed to be part of that filesystem.
If something works "automagically" like this then I jump into thinking about failure modes. Will it mount if one of the other devices are missing or failing? Will it just warn that the raid is degraded and I should add a new device? Will it mount read-only?
> I'm not sure if there are any techniques documentation writers can use to avoid this "hiding in plain sight" kind of problem.
The problem is probably lack of emphasis. It's guess it's hard to achieve in writing, if a solution is simple than you don't need many words to explain it, then it becomes easy to skip over.
> If something works "automagically" like this then I jump into thinking about failure modes. Will it mount if one of the other devices are missing or failing? Will it just warn that the raid is degraded and I should add a new device? Will it mount read-only?
That's all well-documented, but it can also be summarized by saying that btrfs does the right thing. It won't mount normally if it's missing any devices, because running in degraded mode shouldn't be a silent error (especially at mount time).
