namecast

Ah nice! Glad to see you've already thought of this. Any sense of what % of addresses you would hope to be private vs geo-marked? (Asking because it's easy to mark all private addresses as being "bad" if they're in the minority, but once they reach a tipping point that becomes infeasible - at least we've seen this with addresses tagged as belonging to VPN providers).

If you have a decent amount of private addresses in the mix (1) such that blocking them would 'break' the mycoria experience(2) then it sounds like you've got a decent solution here - geo-aware prefixes for convenience and private addresses for when you'd prefer the anonymity.

1) I freely confess to not knowing what percentage a good mix would be. 20%? 5%? In practice, going back to the VPN example for IPv4, it's "a high enough percentage of important users complaining that their VPN connections are broken for a long enough time". Depending on the jurisdiction that can be 1% (well off / well connected people in a jurisdiction complaining to the right people that in turn overwhelm management with their complaints) to >20% (not necessarily well off or well connected users, but a critical mass that instead overwhelms ISP help desks with complaints).

2) Assumption: mycoria / the app you're building on top of it becomes so important that breaking it completely is a non-starter for the average ISP.

This is very cool @dhaavi! Can definitely see where you've taken lessons learned from cjdns and yggdrassil.

I hate to nitpick but this project looks promising enough - and the new project you mentioned interesting enough - that I feel the need to. From your FAQ:

First, there is some structure to the router IPs. While there are special purpose prefixes, most IPs will be in a geo-marked prefix. Every country (+ States in the US) has their own prefix within Mycoria. This means that on the global level, Mycoria routers in the same country share the same prefix. These prefixes are also (tendentially) similar to nearby countries.

Second, within a country prefix, Mycoria uses address-distance routing. This means that packets are sent in the direction of the "address-nearest" other router known. While this is not the most efficient way to route packets, it does work quite well with some additional steps - especially if confined to a smaller geographic region, as Mycoria is doing.

My commentary: One of the unfortunate lessons we learned from the IPv4 internet and management of IANA IPs by the different RIRs (and the subsequent tagging of IPv4 blocks with geographic information) is that layer-8 folks love the idea of layering policy on top of geographic tags. (E.g.: Maxmind says your address is in Pakistan, and according to Pakistani law content offered by another address is verboten, ergo you are blocked.)

Geographic awareness built in to network prefixes may be used against your users in ways that you'd prefer to avoid. Or perhaps it's an acceptable tradeoff for you - it's easy to envision scenarios where 'the juice is worth the squeeze' and users derive enough benefit from geo-aware prefixes to accept the drawbacks. If it's the former, I'd recommend investigating moving from geo-aware prefixes ("I'm within X miles of other people in this jurisdiction") to latency-aware prefixes ("I'm within X ms of other people within this prefix").

(Steelmanning my own recommendation - it's possible that anyone trying to implement layer 8 policies on top of geographical-aware prefixes will just willfuly misinterpret latency-aware prefixes as being close enough to them, which would mean a lot of wasted effort for nothing).

Anyway, just my two cents. Again, very cool project, looking forward to seeing what you build on top of it!

The subject line doesn't seem to match with the the post it links to - perhaps it's been updated since being shared here? The blog post right now is titled 'the ecosystem is moving', and in the first paragraph states:

"Nothing about any of the protocols we’ve developed requires centralization; it’s entirely possible to build a federated Signal Protocol-based messenger, but I no longer believe that it is possible to build a competitive federated messenger at all."

...which is is a far cry from "why federated protocols don't work". A more accurate headline summary might be "why we believe federated protocols are not competitive for this use case", which has a different ring to it.

That I did assume - but only because you misused virtue signaling twice in two sentences, which is a Trumpie tell. You might have just picked it up from Twitter?

Also, don't post an excised version of your flagged tweet and then expect me not to catch it. Nice try, troll. Here's your flag, I was game right up until you were intellectually dishonest and sloppy on top of it.

My assumption was based on your words.

I think you're confused on the difference between love, compassion and compatriotism. I don't expect you to love me or anyone outside of your own circle, but if you were hoping to make america great again without compassion or compatriotism, I'll enjoy watching the attempt.

No, I actually want to figure out how to live side by side. This shit is terrifying. Please stop talking past me and imagining an enemy that doesn't exist.

(Also: I'm aware your post didn't ask the question. It was implicit... which is why I said implicitly. I do have the best vocabulary, tremendous vocab words folks. A lot of people are saying Trump voters have trouble with bigly words. Sad!)

That depends: do they typically bust the buyers after they've bought real drugs and already used them? It's all fake bags of white powder that never get used, yeah?

For me this sort of hinges on whether actual child pornography was distributed (and then, i imagine, consumed and re-distributed by pedophiles) in the name of making a bust.

Hilarious that you think I've even voted - I was a Bernie supporter and would have been upset with either Trump or Clinton. Please read this thread again when you're in a better frame of mind, if and when that day should come. And when you do, one more time:

You seem to understand the idea that this phrase can be used in at least some context without it being a slur, so I ask - does the above thread, where you jumped in to an existing conversation to use 'Uncle Tom' in a one-line comment lacking any substance or nuance- seem like that sort of context?

I will repeat:

"I have flagged your comment for moderator review, as you are using a throwaway account and spreading racially charged rhetoric in lieu of engaging in civilized discussion". I hope that makes things clear.

You've moved on to civilized discussion - which is why I've started engaging with you - but the racial slur and your insistence that it's `totally just a prank brah context brah cmon` is precious.

You seem to understand the idea that this phrase can be used in at least some context without it being a slur, so I ask - does the above thread, where you jumped in to an existing conversation to use 'Uncle Tom' in a one-line comment lacking any substance or nuance- seem like that sort of context?

I am completely comfortable with your assessment of the value of my feedback, throwanem. (Food for thought: not all vacuums are physical. I'm sure you do, as you seem to assert, run into POC when you're on the train and the Orioles aren't playing; this doesn't have any bearing on your use of this term, or your presence or absence in a monocultural thought vacuum.)

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Can I ask: would you mind walking up to a group of African Americans in your town, saying that phrase in front of them, and soliciting their take? I think you'd value their feedback more than you do mine.

I don't feel the urge at all, actually, and since you're engaging in discussion now, I'll address you:

I'm certainly willing to engage with you if you make a point that I disagree with - read this thread and my comments in it for proof of that - but that "phrase I don't like" is a racial slur, full stop, and the idea that you "learned it from a black man" fully excuses it's use in every conversation, in every venue and at any time you like going forward is, well, wrong in a way that I don't think you'd ever be able to accept.

Consider editing your initial comment, and reflect on the idea that butting into a thread with a throwaway racial slur is perhaps not the way to get people to engage with you.

"I have flagged your comment for moderator review, as you are using a throwaway account and spreading racially charged rhetoric in lieu of engaging in civilized discussion". I hope that makes things clear.

Welp, here's your flag.

"Eff you, I gots mine" is not the robust survival strategy you might think it is.

I don't know you, but I hope your mother is doing ok, and I hope she will do better under a Trump presidency than I think she will. There's actually plenty of parts of my life that I'd consider giving up or changing if I could guarantee a better future for both your mom and mine, now that your post implicitly asks that question.

Again - the author is from Middle America; there is no 'they', it's 'we'. And here's just part of what is said:

"To pin this election on the coastal elite is a cop-out. It’s intellectually dishonest, and it’s beneath us.

We, as a culture, have to stop infantilizing and deifying rural and white working-class Americans. Their experience is not more of a real American experience than anyone else’s, but when we say that it is, we give people a pass from seeing and understanding more of their country. More Americans need to see more of the United States. They need to shake hands with a Muslim, or talk soccer with a middle aged lesbian, or attend a lecture by a female business executive.

We must start asking all Americans to be their better selves. We must all understand that America is a melting pot and that none of us has a more authentic American experience."

That's a far cry from your interpretation.

You didn't read the article. The author is from middle america and explaining to those who are not from there how wrong we are in our interpretation of what has happened. Read it, please, it's quite informative.

Spoiler: I'm Muslim. Interacting with you, online, in a civil manner.

It's very similar when it comes to Islam too. I criticize Islam. I criticize Islam's pedophile, rapist and thuggish prophet Muhammad. I criticize Islam's treatment of women and kaafirs (disbelievers). I criticize Islam's barbaric misogynist doctrines.

Again: zero to do with reality. Again: learn to interact with reality and not google. Very telling that you avoided answering any of my prior direct questions.

I've spent too much of my life listening to hate preachers try to misinterpret various Surah and Hadith to achieve objective (x); x is almost always silly, always nationalistic, and always wrong.

Watching you do the same thing to justify your desperate need for an Other - which you still refuse to acknowledge, and which again, is sad and worrying and a sign that you please, should see a doctor for this anxiety - reminds me very much of the behavior of a typical hate preacher. And that extremists of all types have so much in common with each other - namely, the willingness to ignore facts in the pursuit of satisfying dogma.

For what it's worth: if you want to tell me that there is a Muslim, or a group of Muslims somewhere in the world that mistreat women or 'kaffir' or what have you : that would be true! And conflating that group of people with anything that you can reasonably call Islam - a word used to represent 1.6 billion people, 57 countries, and millenia of history - is psychotic, and not a thing you can really do with any other religion or group of people without being called out directly for it, thankfully. Conflating a massive group of people by a cherry picked example of their worst is the exact definition of prejudice. I know that you won't accept that on the face of it, and your knee-jerk reaction is that you're armed with The Truth here - but take a deep breath. Cognitive dissonance can often be difficult to confront head on. Please try to do so.

Now - I believe this is your cue to explain to me that I really just want to turn you into a dhimmi; offer some whack-ass cherry picked mistranslated hadiths to prove that really, these noble savages just need to be shown the light; or copy paste some nonsense /b/ bullet points about how "Islam does X" in order to help you ignore the real human - this one, right in front of you! - telling you that faulty generalizations in the service of your priors is the telltale mark of a bigot. Go ahead, do what you want to do. And then, for the love of God - go to a doctor.

When you get back: why do you need an Other so badly? Second time I'm asking.

No. I am pointing out that your "criticisms" are conveniently conflated, totally reductive, and divorced from any objective reality. You're doing all the reducing. Re-read your own words. Or as much as are your own, as you seem to have done some copy-and-pasting.

Or? Let's try this a different way: have you ever even attempted to identify what your "issue with Islam" is? You don't seem to have any single articulable criticism or complaint besides "the others are comin', see this scary video!". Have you even thought farther than that? Did you not feel the need to?

See, here's my take: I think you've invented a neat little alternate reality for yourself where you virtue signal your love for the western liberal tradition by valiantly fighting against the Other - one you imagine and encounter only online and never in real life - and now you're full on radicalized by filter-bubble friendly Youtube clips and rare Reddit pepes, imagining the looming Sharia monsters that are a comin'. I think this because, well, you've said as much, pretty explicitly, in your profile on this board. That's sad, and worrying, and I don't want you to think that it's normal or that you're engaged in some sort of normal debate.

Why do you need an Other? Have you asked yourself that? It's clear that you do - but why?

I'll give you credit, you didn't even try to dress this up with anecdata. Thank you for your transparency.

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

We can keep doing this all day. I urge you to learn to experience reality outside of Youtube clips.

But Islamists (Muslims who wish/strive to bring Islam as ruler in the world) are trying to bring Sharia in the western world a

This is a fantasy that is born out of spending too much time on messageboards and not enough in reality. I get that you think that creeping sharia is on the horizon; go see a doctor about your anxiety issues, is my advice, because that statement is so far from reality that I can't imagine you'd take any other advice I'd give.

If you think that a reasoned, nuanced argument is going to bring this guy over to my point of view - that view being that reducing 1.6 billion people spread across 57 countries down to a couple of Sam Harris youtube clips is silly - I'll have to disagree. Also: why on earth would you think that?

"The issue of Islam" pretty much says it all right there. Reducing 1.6 billion people and 57 countries around the world down to a few youtube clips that agree with your priors is what I'm going to politely describe as "an interesting worldview". Here's your flag.

These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans.

Respectfully: that is simply not how labor works.

'Illegal immigrants' may flood the job market with workers that are willing (or forced) to take lower pay than most Americans, work longer hours than most Americans, or deal with more hardships than most Americans - but it is the employers role to decide whether they'd rather take on the risk of employing undocumented workers than fixing these conditions. If an employer says "eff it, I'm willing to turn a blind eye and break the law if it means slightly less money spent on wages" - they're the ones at fault.

I'm trying to point out what might seem obvious: focusing on the immigrants here may feel satisfying, but if the employers are not compelled to ameliorate their behavior, then deporting every last immigrant won't change the situation.

This is an unfortunate example of non-finance domain experts, who I'm sure are more than capable in their respective fields, making egregious errors when they try to apply their knowledge in finance.

Full ACK to this statement. I remember when this post was written in 2013 (by the way, can that date be put in the title?), alongside a similar paper arguing Twitter hashtags/likes/retweets could serve as a market signal - mostly for this excellent response:

http://sellthenews.tumblr.com/post/59720892780/no-limits-to-...

and

http://sellthenews.tumblr.com/post/57169975134/moon-patrol

I find upon re-reading them that I agree even more than I did 3 years back.

For those of you dead set against using PA, you may want to look into this project to emulate PulseAudio support for ALSA: https://github.com/i-rinat/apulse

Sorry, but this is so reductive that it descends into prejudice.

The Gadhaffi regime is to blame for all of these things; pinning them on 'Libyan culture' is not even wrong.

I'm not sure what else to say. Please consider editing this comment; I'm sure it was poorly worded as a response to the original poster, and you don't actually mean this.

Thanks, that was literally my first thought on reading the title and seeing the URL.

I imagine this is a trial balloon of some sort; I wonder if http://mail.google is going to be next?

I strongly disagree. I didn't need anyone to "show up" to replace my init system in production across several thousand servers, and the way systemd "won" that battle wrt Debian was, to be polite, controversial, political and extremely divisive. They sure as heck didn't win because "they showed up and no one else did". They showed up and RedHat's money showed up with them.

I hold no animus towards the systemd project's goals or aspirations, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason for systemd to be shipping in it's current state.

You may want to look into the 2-of-3 escrow with timeout defined in BIP 112.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawi...

You want 'the blockchain' to verify payment between parties; these parties will be in charge of verifying satisfactory delivery and releasing funds.