I do wonder if these will fundamentally be different OS's or just track each other forever.

Remember, this is a generic internet service. While it may mostly be used by mobile devices a lot of rural areas are forced to use these connections for their home internet connections and that includes providing service to the 70" UHD internet connected, voice activated television that knows when you're fridge ran out of beer.

This would destroy the major USA ISPs. Most of them advertise "up to" speeds that are asynchronous and rarely live up to half their expectation. Many of the larger ISPs depend on this lack of clarity to arbitrarily over subscribe their customers. This would drastically destroy many of their shady marketing practices. 3 Here's to hoping...

The U.N. has already partially done this. Unfortunately it's not a binding treaty but rather a recommendatory resolution, but through time and acceptance it's risen to the level of customary international law. It's specifically in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, which states:

It is very broad and open to a large amount of interpretation, but you find that in all international laws. Removing or restricting access to dissenting political bodies access to the information would be a pretty clear cut violation of this. Once again those, this isn't an enforceable or binding treaty and several significant countries oppose it becoming one (not surprisingly, primarily China and Russia).

Separately, I disagree with government attempting to censor misinformation. I know it's a huge problem, but when the government gets involved at that level it sets a dangerous precedent of authority against people who disagree with the government or statements made by the government. Ideally I'd want to support no form of government censorship at all (leaving individual site censorship up to the operators of the site), but there are to many possibilities for direct and blatant harm to individuals through harassment, threats, posting private information, etc. for the only repercussion to be loss of access to a public site.

Yeah, but Apple's got the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act) to worry about. They /can't/ pay bribes.

Apple made the ref-counting choice decades ago and now has to keep supporting it to maintain compatibility with their APIs.

I don't know who's dumb enough to be surprised that any technology can singularly solve a problem as large as privacy.
Tor solves the network connection problem, moderately well. There's more to privacy than that, and it's ridiculous to expect Tor to solve that all by itself.

Big surprise! If you use tor to log into facebook, facebook knows who you are! Where's the outrage?!?!

SCTP, for one, doesn't have any encryption. QUIC integrates a TLS layer into it, in a way that avoids a lot of connection setup time. The best you could do in SCTP is to put it under DTLS, which won't be as fast. Second, SCTP has horrible fragmentation behavior -- NDATA was supposed to help, but didn't make it in. It uses TCP's congestion window system over the entire association, while QUIC also has pacing. And looking at RFC2960, you'll see the names: Motorola, Cisco, Siemens, Nortel, Ericsson, and Telecordia. Generally someone has to pay engineers to make the standards.

As for the article, the UDP vs TCP discussion is a red herring. AFAICT, QUIC's use of UDP is for compatibility with existing IP infrastructure.

IMAP uses TLS.

PhD in industry here, I interview a candidate a week.

I'll keep it simple. Every time that you didn't feel like you did well in an interview question, go home and study to get better at those questions.

Unless you're applying to a research lab, realize that you're applying to jobs that you're probably underqualified for. Your PhD says that you haven't been making production quality code for a few years.

E.g. Learn the damn stl containers. It takes a fucking weekend. They have very similar APIs and are mostly sensible. Just because you finished a PhD doesn't mean that you're done learning, much the opposite.

There's an offline gmail chrome app that lets you work that way. Also, turn on two-factor for them. They can receive the number via SMS, and it'll help prevent them from being phished. Once set up, it's easy to understand how to do it, and they only need do it every month. (There are a few email providers that provide 2-factor).

gmail can check a pop3 account on your behalf, and you can set your 'from' address (I haven't checked the constraints on what you can set it to...). So there's not necessarily a need to change email addresses to use gmail.

if gmail is blocked, then you're in an unusual situation where nobody here can give you good advice without knowing more about what's going on.

I'm advocating gmail here for three reasons:
(1) Really good spam filters and phishing warnings that can help keep out scams
(2) Two-factor authentication
(3) Easy setup with a chromebook.

With the last, they can keep all their stuff on drive (and you can just log into drive to help them), and you can chromote in to see their desktop and help. Even video-chat while chromoting.

Much less define what "general intelligence" means, beyond "solve problems I can solve, but not necessarily the ones that I can't."

It's a lovely device, really. But windows, eww. I'd get one for myself, but the keyboard doesn't work with Linux, and is too cramped for my ogre hands.

Or equivalently "Graduate students are being exploited."

If enough of them have young kids (and your 40+ years - 10 puts many of your peers in the mid-30s), then they'll be going through the same stuff, only have less experience. Come in as the voice of wisdom and experience. It's useful!

Just don't spend too much time talking about old systems. Some older programmers do that, and it just distances themselves unnecessarily. Having used an older system isn't a technical merit, it's just saying that you're old. Interesting anecdotes, special features, and spectacular failures of old systems, however, are fun to hear.