HN user
Clock bias.
Because the clocks internal to GNSS receivers are not that accurate, if they're not at the "targeted" location they'll see that all satellites are off by a given time offset, and think that their clock is just off by that much.
"regardless of how much they spend" is not a statement that you can put in a business plan
Absolutely not
Yes - delay SYNs until an authenticated reverse lookup confirmed the IP was owned by a trusted domain. With caching to reduce common-case latency, which would otherwise be intolerable.
It was a somewhat flippant (given that GitHub doesn't implement DNSSEC either) dig at the idea of using hand-entered/hand-updated IP addresses for access control, rather than having the access control system look addresses up in the system designed to securely attest owner/ip mappings.
You don't exactly need a translation layer. If they just gave me 1.1.1.1:: in v6, anyone migrating v4 to v6 would have the same route to me as before, and other changes like DNS6 could be gradual.
Think about this on a concrete, packet by packet level - I, from a v6 network, with a 128-bit address that cannot be represented by IPv4, decide to open a connection to 1.1.1.1. 1.1.1.1 doesn't have v6 set up, and so can't read my v6 packet and craft a response packet, because its address is invalid in v4. We need a gateway in the middle that will translate the packets from one format to another and perform the NAT function from one address space to another. This is an irreducible complexity.
a lot of people don't even want public v6 addrs for hosts, they just want NAT/DHCP.
People don't care about whether their address is public or not, they want connectivity. SLAAC gives that to them; it is you that are insisting on adding complexity for the sake of having a non-routable address. As a user, I enable IPv6 on my router and go on my merry way; as an ISP, I assign my customer's router a /60 or /56 via DHCPv6 instead of a /24 and go on my merry way. Running an IPv6 address allocation system is a an easy, solved problem and has been for decades.
The hard problem is dual-stacking, and there is no way around that.
IPv4 addresses are in fact a subspace of IPv6 (that's NAT64). They were not by fiat declared invalid. The actual thing I think you're complaining about - the necessity for NAT64 at all - is unavoidable, because you need a NAT/protocol-translation layer for packets to actually move between the new address space and the old one.
SLAAC-by-default is not, in my experience implementing IT automation, an actual barrier for adopters. You have a router sending out RS instead of a DHCP server, to an admin this is not a meaningful change.
The problem has nothing to do with over engineering, or really anything to do with the actual contents of the IPv6 standard. It is just devilishly hard to make any backwards-incompatible change to layer 3, and address expansion is always going to be backwards incompatible.
providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses
Yes, they do. It's called DNSSEC.
Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.
EU countries spend about 2% of GDP on their militaries. It's not at the high US levels, but it's closer to Iran's number than it is to zero.
Commander-In-Chief is not a career military post, it is an elected politician. Your barefaced assertion that he would have professional-level knowledge is resting on one an array of assumptions - that he has an interest in the details, that he respects and listens to professionals, that he has the attention span to read written briefings - that reporting indicated are false.
About 4% of the federal budget and 6% of discretionary spending at its peak, not of GDP.
Still a very high number, but nowhere near the military-budget-levels you're talking about.
The Nigerian type scams typically prey on greed; time pressure isn't part of the draw.
There's another class of scams where the draw is fear - "your son is in jail", "your bank account is under investigation and will be closed in 24 hours if you don't act now", &c. They rely on time pressure to prevent the victim from reaching out directly to the parties they're lying about and disproving the scam.
This is aimed at that particular type of scam and that particular type of victim.
It gives preferential treatment to Jews regardless of their religious practice or lack thereof.
Its self-definition as a "Jewish state" is deliberately vague about its definition of "Jewish", and is in practice closer to Western ideas of ethnicity/nationalism than to "religion".
The claim was that all religious Jews believe this. The motte-and-bailey is unseemly.
The Paris Agreement included an explicit clause allowing parties to exit it after giving notice of withdrawal. It did not go out of effect immediately on Trump's election, but the administration went through the legal procedure.
The NPT has much stricter terms for withdrawal, which in any case Iran has not followed.
(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)
Benjamin Netanyahu is a rabid nationalist, not a religious fundamentalist.
The tweet and article say the timing comes with symbolism, not that the symbolism was the reason for the timing.
Correlation is not causation, and the article does not even claim causation.
Not entirely accurate:
1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.
2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.
But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
That tweet does not support your claim, and it is in fact not Purim yet.
This is insane conspiracy theory nonsense, and is also not how actual Jews read the Tanakh.
(Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but I think is indicative of you getting your information from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than anything related to Jewish theology or culture.)
Huh. Interesting.
This is not a common narrative in Israeli discourse (especially since in that discourse David's kingdom is considered to have continued in the southern Kingdom of Judah, and to have lasted several centuries).
Hey there I'm Israeli and I'm quite politically informed and moderately religiously educated and I have never heard of this "curse of the eighth decade" thing you've heard of.
That is not the ruling Likud ideology in Israel nor the allied national religious ideology; both refer to Israel+Palestine+Golan as "the Whole Land of Israel".
And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military service.
Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission.
Treaty obligations do not disappear with a revolution
Israel never signed the NPT, like India and Pakistan.
Iran signed the NPT.
The NPT did not exist at the time of the US developing nuclear weapons, and it explicitly allows US (and other pre-existing nuclear powers') weapons.
Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it, forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to develop them.
There are commercially available drones that can carry a payload of high-single-digit to low-double-digit kilograms for at least 10km.[1] They fly low enough and are small enough to avoid most radar.
Their use in cross border smuggling of weapons and drugs is well documented[2]; interception rate is low enough that they can make multiple runs before being downed, and they can pay back their purchase cost with only a few successful runs. Typical concept of operations is similar to manned ground crossings, but with drones covering the most dangerous 5-10km of actually crossing the border: a team on one side loads them up and sends them to a team on the other side, with both having a LOT of real estate to hide in because of the drone's range.
(I work on counter drone EW, and border-control customers are under intense pressure to get this under control.)
[1] Just from DJI, see e.g. the Matrice 400 [https://enterprise.dji.com/mobile/matrice-400/specs], with 6kg payload and approximately zero purchase controls; or the T25 [https://ag.dji.com/mobile/t25p/specs], with >20kg of payload capacity, and even in restrictive regulatory regimes only requiring a shell crop spraying company to buy.
This is all true, but is completely consistent with your parent post's claim that he's good at building unicorn companies.