I'd be happier with an OLED screen that was capable of displaying text that wasn't a blurry mess.

No, I'm in DFW. Houston I think is the 4th largest city. But DFW is the 4th largest metropolitan statistical area. Houston/Woodlands/Sugarland area is 5th.

There are some places around that can get symmetrical fiber, but my area of Arlington isn't one of them.

Supposedly the city signed a deal to roll out fiber to the whole city, but it's been something like 3 years since the "groundbreaking" and I haven't heard a peep of an update from the city, or the company they are working with to do the rollout.

Best I can get is Spectrum 1Gb down/40Mb up for $95. The download is fine but the slow upload speeds are driving me nuts, and of course the price is pretty bad considering what other areas can get for cheaper.

Hell, my friend has a cabin in Arkansas, about 45min north of Hot Springs. Absolutely the middle of nowhere. It's about a 30 min drive to the nearest gas station. But he can get symmetrical gig fiber for quite a bit less than what I'm paying.

As soon as such a thing is available to me, I'll sign up. Alas, there is no such service available to me despite living in the 50th most populous city in the country, in the middle of the fourth most populous metropolitan area in the US.

Something. something, lack of competition...

Some of the most useful drivers in CUPS are "Generic PCL Laser Printer" and "Generic PostScriptPrinter". The Canon drivers for my ImageClass MF8580Cdw offer some extra features, but both of those drivers work with it and many other printers if you're just concerned with printing. It will also work over lpd, HP's hpjis or whatever, HTTP, or HTTPS. I used to have (and probably still do in a drawer) a standalone network print server to hook up to non-network-native printers. For that I could use PCL or PostScript generic drivers depending on the printer, too. Or I could actually FTP a text, PS, EPS, PCL, or IIRC PDF file directly to the print server.

Not everything useful is your primary desktop.

At this point an iPhone 5s is both cheaper and easier to order than a RaspberryPi 4B. People have lots of uses for those, which is why they're sold out everywhere that's not scalping or price gouging.

I imagine you'd usually, outside a massive backbone, terminate these into passive optical mux/demux equipment before it ever got near electronic routers or switches.

https://www.precisionot.com/mu...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://www.lumentum.com/en/op...

That appears to be a cable of 20 fiber pairs, with each fiber in each pair still having a single core.

You'd really just need your gateway router to do NAT for you. We could reserve a /8 for mapping active v6 connections into your v4 network. The internal v4 network doesn't need to know who it's actually talking to unless you've got a server that cares about accurate logs. You can log the mappings of the NAT from the router. If you do care at the server who's accessing it, run v6.

Why would that traffic get past the router? Why wouldn't that be internal traffic, and tunneled if it needs to go over the Internet?

There's a lot more to RFC 1918 space than 192.168/16. You're forgetting 10/8 and 172.16/12 completely here.

Honestly, though, if the whole public Internet refuses to route any IPv4 at all, then all IPv4 could be used at every installation behind that 6-to-4 bridge. There's no shortage if each private network can have 4 billion addresses. Anyone who needs to route directly without NAT in your scenario could just do the right thing and use IPv6.

Interesting you think career DoD people support a man over a nation state to which they've dedicated their careers.

As I said, he's a stupid fucking fascist tool and his motives here reflect that. Removing the copyright extensions is I imagine the only piece of policy regarding anything anywhere on which he and I would agree. The reasons for doing so are different, because I am not a stupid fucking fascist like Josh Hawley.

Josh Hawley is a stupid fascist fucking tool and his motives reflect that. I can't argue with returning some common sense to copyright limits, though.

Absolutely. The location and victims and the fact that it happened are newsworthy. The name of the person attacking is nearly irrelevant to public discourse except to sensationalize all the neighbors saying how quiet he was and his aunties saying he was such a good boy. Stop giving them the notoriety they crave, and it might prevent a couple of future attacks by someone feeling marginalized and anonymous.