There's nothing stopping you doing NAT6 either.

In fact, I do, but that's because my ISP is incompetent and IPV6 doesn't work properly (lots of other things don't work properly either, including DNS where I have to talk to a (remote) DNS server on a non-standard port to do DNSSEC[1]).

The nice thing about IPV6-IPV6 NAT if you're using it as a poor mans firewall is that you can do 1:1 address mapping, which also makes debugging issues easier and forwarding things you do want to allow trivial too, no more only one machine can listen on port 443 and you have to use a reverse proxy.

[1] I suspect that DNS does work if you make the router the (IPV4) DNS server but I've not checked that extensively. IPV6 dns doesn't work properly even if you use the ISPs advertised DNS servers.

Agreed, although egress filtering can be tricky if you're using SLAAC with privacy addresses and you want some clients to have external connectivity and not others unless you can partition them onto separate /64.

I use mac based tagging via an iptables firewall rather than have multiple SSID on the wlan.

But egress filtering is getting harder and harder anyway, everybody and his dog talks to something at amazon aws on port 443. So far, I've been able to use SNI inspection and there's been nothing using ESNI that I need to allow to connect, but once that becomes common for things like banking apps I guess the bad guys have won and it will be all but impossible to egress filter, you cannot even use DNS as they'll talk to DNS servers over HTTPS too.

In theory you should be able to MITM bit neither android nor apple make installing an ultimately trusted certificate easy (if it's possible at all)

Hell, it's even hard now to block all outgoing connections on android except via VPN. Always on VPN doesn't actually route everything via the VPN, it likes to chatter to google bypassing the VPN. And it "really doesn't like it" if it cannot confirm direct internet connectivity even though the VPN can connect. You used to be able to divert the connectivity check - which was on port 80, but that seems to be on port 443 with later versions of android and good luck importing a certificate so that you can fake google.com.

and let their cars drive around all day searching for free parking

Or just find the nearest traffic jam, the problem with looking for parking is that if there isn't a space you've got to keep driving. But if you just use whatever traffic information there is to find the most congested bit of the road, you've got "free parking" without needing to park at all.

In their minds we are winning. This is exactly what they voted for.

Similar is happening in the UK and we don't even (yet) have a nutty government, only an incompetent one without a plan.

The NHS has relied on foreign born doctors, 42% of all doctors were born outside the UK. While there was a surge in recruitment after Brexit but that has now slowed.

Doctors in the NHS are well paid when compared to the UK population as a whole but not well paid when compared to doctors in other countries. Australia and the US are the two that are typically referenced where pay is significantly higher.

https://www.ukfactcheck.com/ar...

I don't know anything at all about this technology, I'd not heard about it before. I came to the comments to find out if it was relying on liquification of CO2, which I assumed, or was something else.

First point to note, 80 bar isn't high pressure in an industrial setting and 30C is low enough that there's large parts of Europe where you can assume that ambient air temperature almost never exceeds it. Therefore passive cooling is possible and in many cases, forced air cooling will be is sufficient. (I liquified CO2, indoors, in the summer months, as an undergraduate in the UK with only passive cooling required. I don't recall the exact pressure but it was around 60bar which suggests the indoor temperature was around 20C.)

A long pipe passive atmospheric heat exchanger is almost certainly all that is needed, much like the radiator on domestic fridge.

You don't mention it but the decompression cycle is likely more problematic as, I would guess, ice buildup might restrict the ability to use passive or forced air heating unless you're using dehumidified air (which you might be anyway to avoid corrosion). You also need to avoid the CO2 freezing.

Long term storage - while I suspect this technology isn't intended for long term storage and is expected to cycle in a few days, storing liquid CO2 isn't a problem. CO2 cylinders will store gas for months even after first use. It's not like helium where without incredibly careful setup, you'll lose all the gas overnight once you break the factory seal.

Likewise impurities, The initial loading of the CO2 will require a pure gas and you'll want water vapour in particular excluded. Trace amounts of nitrogen and oxygen probably aren't going to be a problem (I don't know about how they affect the critical temperature, it might be that they also have to be totally excluded but that just makes initial loading harder). But it's not hard to produce equipment that is impervious to CO2, N2, O2, Ar and H2O that can maintain integrity at 100bar (you've got about a 40:1 safety factor for steel at 100bar). If trace amounts of impurity are a problem then you'll probably need to bake the equipment to flush out the adsorbed gasses but I'd guess flushing the pipework with CO2 at high temperature would be sufficient, I doubt you'd need to get to CERN levels of outgassing elimination.

Manufacturers in China have enjoyed a distinct advantage in in lax environmental regulations, low material costs and labor rates compared to US. US manufacturing is competitive on the high end. We just cannot compete with cheap volume manufacturing.

I suspect US manufacturing can compete at much of the low end now as labour costs is becoming almost irrelevant to much of it.

However, the up front cost to build a fully automatic factory is substantial, and it requires constant ongoing capital investment to stay useful. You may not recoup your investment unless you can stay useful for 10 years and initial orders may have an estimated run time of 6 months.

One of the things that would help, but is one of the things that seems anathema to western corporations, is standardisation, A fan motor fails in a laptop, it's usually reasonable simple to replace except that that motor is specific to that particular model of that particular laptop from that particular manufacturer and your best source of parts might be a "not working" laptop of ebay.

There is certainly a case for custom parts like motors in some cases but most of the time, like arbitrary power plugs, it's to benefit the manufacturer and force obsolescence earlier.

Imagine manufacturers getting together to standardise some of these things. Maybe they create a new standard every 5 years. If you want a drone motor you'll know what sort of power supply so what voltage it should take, whether it's a high RPM or lower RPM use case, what power and what weight. Perhaps there's nothing suitable, then you have to have a custom part, but then there can be a "custom part tax" - high enough that manufacturers won't ignore it, but low enough that genuine use cases aren't prohibited until the next round of standardisation.

Even washing machines. I have a small kitchen and there is a space for a washing machine but there's no possibility of rearranging things to make more space. This is an absolutely standard (European) sized space. 20 years ago pretty much every washing machine would have fitted. Now lots don't, and even worse, manufacturers/retailers make it hard to tell if a replacement will actually fit. It's not at all uncommon in the UK to visit someone's house and discover a washing machine that is sticking out from the cupboard line by 8cm or so - because "I assumed it was a standard size and would fit". In larger houses it's theoretically, if not financially, possible to replace the entire kitchen with deeper worktops, but in smaller places this can be impossible.

I'm not exactly clear what the issue is. Corrupting the CRC at the end of the packet if you didn't want to send it was something that was talked about in the 90s. I don't know if anyone was doing it but it was certainly talked about.

Around that time, maybe a bit later, Eurex introduced discard addresses. This meant that you could start writing the packet onto the wire and if you changed your mind before you got to the destination address of the TCP header, you could write in the discard address instead of the exchange address.

There's a paper somewhere (from Eurex) showing that the tick to trade back in 2017 was 39ns. It's completely obvious from that that people are starting writing the IOC onto the wire around the time the first 39 bytes of the market data tick are received.

Obviously there are other ways of sending valid orders that won't cross the book. For example, instead of writing the discard address into the TCP header, you write a price that is way off the market into the IOC. Obviously this means you can decide later - alternatively, you can start sending earlier.

There was absolutely no such suggestion of even thought.

Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes? How do you say shit like this with a straight face?

Outside of the US, nobody is going to get a licence to sell a generic herbicide without showing that it's safe to use. This study was an important part of that regulatory process.

The presumption is that the product needs to be shown to be safe to use to get a licence, while getting a licence revoked requires showing that the product is harmful. It's not at all symmetrical.

There's absolutely no reason for google to require you to have a google account and register your phone with them just so you can install packages from the playstore.

Seriously, that's how America works? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

In most of the rest of the world it doesn't work that way.

Firstly things are typically not allowed to be sold unless they can be shown to be reasonably safe - which this study was invaluable for.

But when suing you need actual damages to claim for and you have to show direct harm. There isn't such a thing as punitive damages. The model is to try to prevent bad things from being sold up front rather than assume firms won't do it because of the punitive damages that will be awarded once someone is hurt.

Cancer is particularly difficult to attribute to a particular source.
Technically exemplary damages do exist in the UK but they exist in very narrow circumstances.

Mesothelioma, for example, is extremely rare other than due to asbestos exposure. It is not caused by smoking. This makes it easier to sue successfully (outside of the US I guess) for damages.

In most of the world a study like this is not a defence against damages, but would tend to lead to a presumption that glyphospate was safe to use. But that applies anyway because it's regulated. More likely than not the path to damages would be against someone who used it outside the recommended ways.

Withdrawing this study is unlikely to have any impact on the probability of suing for damages due to glyphosphate exposure or have any claim against Monsanto.

Let me guess, competitors can now produce and market it. So now they need to stop it being sold so they can sell the next great thing at huge markup.

I'm old enough to remember being told that we were all going to freeze due to global cooling. Panic, oh the horror and terror!

I'm also old enough to remember and no you weren't. You were told that, absent human interference, we were in a warm period (inter-glacial) in an ice age and would be heading back into a colder period where much of the northern hemisphere developed world would see glaciers return.

Over tens of thousands of years.

Natural climate change is slow. The Earth has enormous thermal inertia and the variability in the sun's output is tiny compared to the long cycle orbital effects.

Obviously once we start talking giga-years then the Earth will be toasty warm (before it's most likely swallowed by the expanding sun).

Using the 1970s stuff on the inter-glacial we are in to assert that anthropogenic climate change is not a problem is like using the red giant end of the world to assert that it will be the end of the world.

Nobody knows what LLMs are fundamentally capable of doing.

We know exactly what LLMs are capable of doing, at least as they exist today. How they might be used to deliberately or inadvertently influence people is a different, and open, question.

There is an area where LLMs might significantly help research - and it might even be applicable to space flight propulsion, and that's bring in knowledge from other fields.

For example, there could be some quirk about the way the squids and octopuses propel themselves in the water which is known to a handful of physicists who have studied the fluid dynamics in detail but isn't generally widely known.

A space propulsion engineer asking an LLM about a problem they're working on will likely "find" this knowledge that wouldn't otherwise be obvious or even obvious who to ask.

And a real world historical example, radar chirping was classified. Bats do it. And the name "chirp" came later, after it was independently discovered and understood in bats.

But it's vanishingly unlikely that LLMs will provide any insight into a research problem to anyone not already well versed in the field and even if they do, it will be because the researchers have sifted that thread of gold from the haystack of straw. The LLM being incapable of telling the difference.

This is true - but it's also not fraud because it's legal. The only way to make it illegal is regulation and some on the NeoCapitalist side of the ledger are convinced that the only solution is less government.

OTOH, the other side of the coin, and why at least one major hedge fund has closed down, returning the capital to investors, is because it's getting hard to impossible to short where you think values are ridiculously high.

The famous case is the GameStock short squeeze. Retail investors set out to deliberately manipulate the price with the goal of forcing a liquidation of the shorts. If institutional investors had tried the same thing they would be in trouble - and possibly even going to prison - because market manipulation is one of the things that is regulated.

However, like so many things, while it was obvious from the social media noise that the goal of many of the retail investors was to manipulate a short squeeze, it's going to be hard to impossible to prove that any individual investor was doing that, especially as individual retail investors do not have the clout to do it, or even start it, on their own so you'd presumably (IANAL) have to prove collusion as well.

Yes, similar to an etf.

Perhaps a non-crypto example would be an ETF property fund.

Except the fund was formed by the investors putting in property they held rather than money.

Then they offload the ETF shares to the unsuspecting investor who trusts the value the fund has put on its assets.