They literally released the update yesterday you smug pinhead.

If you aren't running updates every hour, you probably don't have it. Hell, if you don't have a distribution with the latest version yet, you don't have it.

> Second, it is absolutely insulting to judge someone solely by their degree after 25 years of professional experience in the field of tech reporting for the general populace

Oh, it's not just the degree he's judging the journalist on, it's also that she's a woman. Because everyone knows in "We use DEI as a pejorative despite not knowing what it means" lala conservative land women don't know things like us smart men do.

What a fucking tool the GP is. Not as bad, I suppose, as the guy who posted an anti-Semitic slur in the AirBNB article, but still pretty bad.

Is the selling point of AirBNB that it's cheaper than a hotel, or that it's more friendly to, say, families (which Hotels are usually hostile to - literally the only hotels I've ever been to that were almost close to family friendly were at Legoland.)

I've never seen an AirBNB ad boast AirBNBs are cheaper. It's always focused on convenience and availability of more than "1 king/2 queens + bathroom" type cookie cutter hotel rooms.

And, honestly, landlords have needed to be reined in for a long time in terms of adding absurd conditions, often not visible until after you've agreed to rent the place. Absentee landlords are common, and a place that's reliant upon guests to do the cleaning is going to be a shithole on a regular basis when one guest follows another with lower standards. It literally cannot work if you rely upon guests to do the cleaning.

> ...the kind of host that thinks they can save a few shekels on...

Welp. Slashdot is... Slashdot I guess. Sometimes I hate this site.

> You can only choose to not stay at a place with "overly strict rules" if those rules are listed in advance.

Yeah, and TBH if AirBNB wants to ban these rules completely, that's entirely reasonable too. The landlords can choose not to use AirBNB just as easily as renters can choose listings that don't have these rules if there's been a race to the bottom and everyone has them (or has them hidden, as you mention.)

This would be a great argument if your LG smart TV wasn't doing that already.

Truth is you don't actually need your router to be the thing that spies on you. Any device hooked up to your network capable of listening to network packets can do it. Right now there is infinitely more evidence that LG is spying on you than TP-Link, because there's zero evidence of the latter, and plenty of evidence of the former.

(Also the TP-Link stuff doesn't have microphones in it.)

Avoid the Fiesta crap too, as that's cloud only.

But yes, I generally agree with your summary, and note that 312 (!) of their devices are capable of running OpenWRT (https://toh.openwrt.org/?view=normal&brand=TP-Link)

Same things conservatives love I'm guessing: cheap, semi-FOSS-friendly, and with some advanced features that other router and Wifi-hub makers are actively removing or never implemented to begin with.

I have one TP Link thing in active use, one of those Wifi APs that hangs from the ceiling and looks like a smoke alarm rather than an Australian spider. First AP I've ever had that gives a consistent signal across the entire house. Are there others out there that can do the same thing? Probably! Do they cost under $100, have open software, do not require a cloud account and Internet access (as opposed to Intranet access) to set up? It's getting hard to find anything that fits that spec.

Right now using a repurposed D-Link for the OpenWRT router, but will have no qualms at all getting something cheap from TP-Link if I ever need to replace it. Here's why:

https://toh.openwrt.org/?view=...

As for conspiracy theories about Chy-nah: I have enough paranoia to regularly run tcpdumps on the OpenWRT router to see what exactly is sending data out. I've yet to see a peep from the AP (or an "unknown" address) except when I've been downloading an update.

They're a good brand. You should probably use them yourself. Just avoid the Fiesta crap as that's cloud-only.

Isn't this already not going to happen until 2039, and that's BEFORE the usual bureaucratic delays that you're counting in that "adds a decade" thing inevitably happen? What makes you think this'll actually be faster in practice? What regulators are going to allow an untried technology that's approximately equal to the tried tech faster than the tried tech?

I suspect there was more than one MBA at the Jan 6th riots, yes. There was a pretty varied group of rich privileged assholes there.

> Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?]

does, however, equate to:

> "Then we will keep it a secret if it's hackable unless we lose"

Assuming they didn't plan to pass the information on to an entity that would hack the machines on their behalf, which seems almost certain.

Nope. I knew someone would make this claim, I knew it. I literally had this quote from the summary ready knowing that someone would claim this was just the White House trying to make our elections secure:

> Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?]

There is no interpretation of the facts that supports anything other than the White House planning to use this information to hack the election.

You and the GP are completely unhinged. I'm wondering you guys think "sociopath" means the same thing as "SJW", "woke", "politically correct", "socialism", and so on - ie it's just some word you throw out there that has a negative connotation to you but you have no idea why.

Other possibility... question for the peanut gallery: is it possible Slashdot is paying people to troll now to stay relevant? More trolls = more $engagement I suppose?

Yes, but...

1. It is far easier for bot owners to run their bots from their own machines than attempt to proxy their requests through other IP addresses. And thousands of orders coming from a small set of non-residential IPs looks indistiguishable from an attempt at hacking. Especially as they're unlikely to have similar profiles, eg web page loading times, what gets loaded, etc.

2. The bots frequently make mistakes. And those are on top of the mistakes users make, not instead of. Flooding the system with bot generated orders is a massive customer service headache.

3. To work adequately, web designers now have to design for an audience that includes both bots and people.

4. This is totally the wrong way to do it. Sane orgs would work with the various websites to use APIs to place orders and do searches. And yes, those websites will charge for it, and have every right to do so given maintaining that infrastructure and keeping it secure costs money, but there's little or no chance a website is going to overcharge someone who, ultimately, is bringing in orders.

Same story for Reddit et al.

And it's a losing battle for all of them, because AI slop is going to continue to infest the Internet, especially the user generated content part, more and more over time, drowing out legitimate content. Which is part of the reason why genAI, despite its boosters claim everyone has to use it and the genie is out of the bottle and (insert more BS here) is simply unsustainable and going to crash. The problem with it is that it's taking down the open web with it.

The irony for me is that Microsoft thinks there's good content on LI anyway. From what I can see it's always been the same bullshit of influencers competing to promote the most batshit insane sociopathic ideas to each other in one sentence paragraphs. Anything trained on LinkedIn is going to be permanently stunted.