When I was talking about memory, I was more thinking about how it is accessed. For example, exactly what actions are atomic, and what are not on a given architecture, these can cause unexpected interactions during multi-core work depending on byte alignment for example. Also considering how to make the most of your CPU cache. These kind of things.

I'd agree that there's a lot more abstraction involved today. But, my main point isn't that people should know everything. But knowing the base understanding of how perhaps even a basic microcontroller works would be helpful.

Where I work, people often come to me with weird problems, and the way I solve them is usually based in low level understanding of what's really happening when the code runs.

I've always found this weird. I think to be a good software developer it helps to know what's happening under the hood when you take an action. It certainly helps when you want to optimize memory access for speed etc.

I genuinely do know both sides of the coin. But I do know that the majority of my fellow developers at work most certainly have no clue about how computers work under the hood, or networking for example.

I find it weird because, to be good at software development (and I don't mean, following what the computer science methodology tells you, I mean having an idea of the best way to translate an idea into a logical solution that can be applied in any programming language, and most importantly how to optimize your solution, for example in terms of memory access etc) requires an understanding of the underlying systems. That if you write software that is sending or receiving network packets it certainly helps to understand how that works, at least to consider the best protocols to use.

But, it is definitely true.

The problem with wifi is that things will go downhill quickly once you have too many stations online. Even if they're not actively browsing, the normal amount of chatter that a network has will often just slow things right down. It would need to be split into smaller wifi networks linked somehow and that means someone needs to be in a central location that is easily traced.

In theory I guess someone with a very fast connection could run a layer 2 VPN. Then you could all run a routing protocol over that network which is accessed over the internet.

Lot's of ways to do it really. Wifi alone is probably the worst though.

In fact, forget the internet!

I mean you could have an open wifi mesh and/or a network of either cheap fibre/ethernet with open switches. Then using OSPF or a similar routing protocol that supports routing over LAN networks you could handle the routing between all the remote networks.

I think you'd need to break the network up at some points to break down the broadcast domains. You could do a similar thing to defederating, by not accepting certain routes, or routes from certain OSPF nodes.

Issues with LANs that get too big without splitting into a new LAN (limiting broadcast domains) and definitely even the most modern wifi becomes problematic with a number of active stations online (wifi is half duplex in operation). So multiple channels and some backbone either over point to point radio links, or cable to connect wifi zones and alternate channels would improve things somewhat.

Not sure why you'd want to do something like this. But the tech to do it is fairly inexpensive.

Or, just spam V all the time!

Not taking any chances. https://winworldpc.com/product/ncsa-mosaic/1

Yes, that's right. I'm going to buy a 486, run windows 3.1 with trumpet winsock and be rid of tracking forever!

Until then:

https://kbin.life/media/take_no_chances.png

I've used IPv6 at home for over 20 years now. Initially via tunnels by hurricane electric and sixxs. But, around 10 years ago, my ISP enabled IPv6 and I've had it running alongside IPv4 since then.

As soon as server providers offered IPv6 I've operated it (including DNS servers, serving the domains over IPv6).

I run 3 NTP servers (one is stratum 1) in ntppool.org, and all three are also on ipv6.

I don't know what's going on elsewhere in the world where they're apparently making it very hard to gain accesss to ipv6.

Also, mouseover long enough and it counts as a watch. There's very little space between videos that doesn't count as a mouseover too.

Lucid dream rookie! If the lucid dream happens, and you're in the same place you fell asleep, well actually if that happens the majority of the time it will become a sleep paralysis episode. But, if it isn't, always teleport yourself the fuck away from the location.

Ain't no way you want to risk that you're too close to being awake (or in this case not asleep at all). I'd wager anon fell asleep, woke up but was having a hypnopompic hallucination, and that explains the text on the board.

The shorts algorithm is really weird I find. The ones it advertises are usually essentially thinly veiled smut (whereas most videos I watch are tech/science/aviation stuff). But (and I think this is important), if I start watching shorts, most of them are normal type shorts in line with what I'd want to watch. So it feels like it puts some stuff up it thinks will grab your attention but doesn't push it once you're watching. I'm sure there's a good reason for it. But, just comes across as weird to me.

I don't get right wing stuff in shorts, but I do sometimes get it in the main videos suggested. How I think it happens is, I watch some videos about computer games, or perhaps a video on a games/science topic which is made by a channel that either also has right wing content OR their viewers also watch such stuff. So it figures, well if they viewed video A, and viewers that watched video A also watched video B, let's push video B to that user too. The algorithm doesn't really understand left or right wing, just pattern matching from views and other metrics.

I find if you start telling youtube that you don't want to see them, they will go away, at least for a while.

Future Lee Harvey Oswald's, every one of them!

The subject of how humans might perceive four dimensional space is covered in a later book of three body novels (Remembrance of earth's past series). The author describes is as being able to see into sealed three-dimensional objects as if they had an open top. As such you could easily traverse into sealed rooms etc from such a perspective.

I thought it was quite an interesting idea.

Pics AND/OR it didn't happen.

Nah, I got the BCG back in the 80s, and I'm in the UK. So definitely not just Mexicans. That is one nasty vaccination, by the way. Do not recommend the experience.

I thought it was weird at the time. The contracts had a notice period in, and it's not like many US states where employment is at-will. The employer is definitely required to give notice (albeit they can send you home and just pay you the notice period, which many do). So I suspect they could have gone after her for that, if they wanted to.

Likely they considered it not worth pursuing, though.

Many years ago, a woman that worked at the same place, just didn't turn up one day. I think they (the closest thing we had to HR at the time) let this slide for a week, then called her. She just said "Oh, I didn't work to work there any more".

I don't think they pursued it any further and let it at that.

Oh, I read this John Grisham book.

If they cannot see a verified human gaze they won't let you even load the site!