Pretty much all tech we have today is entirely possible without burning fossile[sic] fuels

One of the apparent filters is simply that above a certain level of gravity, chemical rockets will not suffice to reach space. We're near the edge of that condition ourselves. Any number of civilizations might be out there, pinned against their planet's surfaces. The only way that's not true is if there are physics yet to be discovered that can accomplish surface-to-space in high gravity without using chemical rockets. We certainly haven't found any sign of such science/technology here. And fission or fusion powered rockets... the engineering for that is at least completely non-obvious thus far. And before anyone says "nukes against a pressure plate", yeah, a delightfully bang-y notion, but no.

The assumption made in the Fermi paradox that any civilization could reach space if they try may simply be wrong.

As there are so many wonderful books out there just begging for a motion picture treatment, Hollywood will oblige by... releasing more pointless, vapid remakes.

IIRC, it's been more of a think for NiCd than LiIon.

If you are trying to explain why we haven't detected any aliens, how is "they were massacred by even more advanced aliens" a remotely adequate answer? That just leaves you with "why haven't we detected the even more advanced aliens?". The question was never "why do we detect so many deathbots and so few little green men?"

If anything, superintelligences are presumably more capable of doing high-visibility things(if they want to) by virtue of being more advanced; and, while they could all be carefully hiding because they're paranoid that same explanation would hold for standard aliens as well.

Seems like an awful lot of hypothesis to explain nothing.

In LiIon batteries, IIRC, the dendrites only form to a significant degree when the battery is abused. That's why most LiIon batteries simply fade away to uselessness rather than the considerably more violent end that happens when the separator is punctured.

Agreed. I tend to keep a cellphone until it's dead. The last one I had went through a couple screen protectors and a new battery until one day it simply wouldn't connect to the cellular network anymore. I would certainly like an extended battery life, especially since the trend is towards harder to replace batteries now.

Since a phone can run from the charger when it's plugged in, a pulsed charging circuit wouldn't be all that complicated and shouldn't add much cost, even given the silly markups in play these days.

The effect is greatest with a 2KHz square wave. A 100 Hz square wave had a lesser but significant effect.

Dendrites is a problem for NiCd batteries. This study is about LiIon batteries where the problem if cracking in the medium the Li is embedded in and formation of a high resistance layer. According to the study, pulsed charging reduces both effects.

Not so fast. There are many scenarios where a life extending charge method could be really helpful, including cellphones and EVs. Perhaps you like to get a new cellphone after 2 years and don't think doubling the total life of the battery is worth it, but wouldn't you like it if your nearly 2 year old phone still held a charge like a nearly 1 year old phone? Don't you thing that at least for some people that might make it worthwhile to hold on to it for another year?

For EVs, one of the biggest worries is how much it will cost when it's time to swap out the batteries. Don't you think being able to put that off for 4 years might be worthwhile.

Pulsed charging won't likely require much modification to charging circuits.

New battery formulations can take years to go from proven in the lab to available to buy. A pulsed charge circuit should have a much shorter lab to street time.

Not my router, so I need to defend against the screwed up config. I choose to do that through a combination of network setup WRT routing and using VLANS to keep traffic that shouldn't be away from my maintenance net. If there should never be traffic from the uplink port to the maintenance net, just block it just in case. Defense in depth.

As a side note, that's also why I avoid sharing the host port for the BMC once a box is in production. It has been handy figuring out what's wrong when helping hands turn out to be less helpful.

Cisco has a bad habit of doing proxy arp.

If martians could come from another customer's network to mine, I have no reason to believe it couldn't go the other way.

The colo manager I contacted about it thought it was anything but normal. The 10 net should have been null routed, of course.

You may be surprised to learn that the little bitty microcontroller most BMCs are based on have significantly less computational power than a 32 core Epyc CPU does...

And that is why I would VLAN my uplink off from my management network. I don't trust your router's config...

You seem to mis-understand security. It's not belt OR suspenders, it's belt AND suspenders. AKA security in depth. I wouldn't depend on just VLAN tagging for security. I wouldn't depend on just routing and firewalling for security.

Finally, do you now or have you ever used Solarwinds?

And I do pentests. I have also seen actual cases where I was getting martians from the mis-configured upstream router in a colo. The martians probably came from another customer in the datacenter. That's how hacks spread from domain to domain though in that case I don't think anything malicious was going on.

In another incident, I found a router that had telnet open reachable through a dial-up. It wouldn't take long to guess a password given that it wasn't logging failed attempts.

Note that even if you only manage one way routing, there is potential for mischief. Anything from DOSing the BMC to a blind attack.

So I really don't care what you manage, I just hope someone else there knows better than to put all the eggs in one basket.

Just repeating yourself won't make it true.

Let's say I hack the upstream to router to actually route the 10 net. With properly configured VLANs, the BMC STILL won't see the packets. Belt and suspenders.

That would be the company's fault for creating the illusion that they would provide those things. If I lie and someone believes me, the consequences of that belief are all on me.

Also, I doubt HP actually loses money on the printer, they just don't make a lot of money without the tying. You'd be amazed how much mark-up is put on things these days. It's why you sometimes see prices so low it's almost silly buying direct from Chinese companies. Note that the much more expensive product from an American or multi-national was probably made in the same factory by the same people.

Somebody's got to pay for the expensive execs, private executive jet, and substantial campaign contributions.