All that means is that the ends (and not the means) are the determining factor.
A private company can have plenty of legitimate reasons to film in public spaces, and to incidentally film people.
Flock's ends are to explicitly track people, and to use that data to accuse them of criminal activity. Those are the ends that the 4th amendment is written to explicit protect us from that, and not exclusively from governments, either.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Then tell them about ADHD. The main problem is that most people have no idea what it is, or how effective treatment can be. ADHD is one of the most poorly named and broadly misunderstood conditions ever.
NAT didn't save us from insecure networking. It gave insecure networking an excuse that was just good enough to satisfy the masses.
This is worse for everyone in so many ways:
1. Forwarding ports suddenly makes you insecure, because you already were.
2. You have to fuck with your router config to even do that, and risk breaking something else along the way. Nobody should have to bother, because port forwarding shouldn't exist in the first place.
3. Many ISPs make it difficult or impossible to configure your firewall, let alone reserve a static public IP.
4. It's an eternal problem that isolates itself from any true solution. Any actually good UPnP implementation would just be stuck behind your NAT and firewall.
The entire premise "as long as you can control it" is the core issue, and the fundamental reason why NAT is the original sin. Without NAT, there wouldn't be anything to get control of.
The consequences are so much more significant than people seem to realize.
Because of NAT, hierarchy (centralized servers) is the foundational design pattern of the internet, and anyone who wants any semblance of anarchy (decentralized networks) must use a workaround that is itself hierarchical and costly. We are all interconnected, but only a wealthy few can truly speak fist.
while i agree with your sentiment, i personally think that the foundational design pattern of the internet as a network is highly decentralized. once you get public IP space and the infrastructure required to talk BGP, making decentralized designs is actually quite easy.
The issue that ipv4 exhausting and "solutions" around it like NAT are making it very hard for actual users (bussiness, people etc) to get access to public IP space without strings attached.
IPv6 solves a lot of this, especially because IP space is so massive LIR's don't need to be so spare with giving out address space.
The far larger issue we have is that applications are ingrained in a client server mindset, in which big incumbents want to have this architecture because it forces control from the server towards to client. And control usually also means having the data itself, which is where the real value lies.
I agree that assumptions on the application side are the bigger issue, but it's less about encouraging client/server architecture in general. It's often very helpful, even among peers, to drop into a mode where somebody is wearing the client hat and somebody else is wearing the server hat.
The sin here is the hierarchy imposed by SSL and its infatuation with server names. Its says: these people are lords, they can wear the server hat. As for the peasants, your client hats are over there. If we catch a peasant wearing a server hat, the browsers will make them look like a criminal.
Most people aren't interested in cooperating. The neat thing about collaboration is that work can be shared without cooperation. Free software is inherently anarchist. Sure, there are several successful cooperative organizations, but they all benefit primarily from the collaboration they do with everyone else, and vice versa.
The problem is that we have fuzzy data and concrete semantics, when what we really want is concrete data and fuzzy semantics.
What we really need is a new system of reason, where each expression implies meaning, and each meaning has implications; but where those implications don't have to be reducible to computable binary logic.
The problem with LLMs is that they are ignorant to their own implications. What follows from a prompt is not any system of reason: it's just a vague sense of familiarity. Even when we have them stumble through the topology of a logical deduction, they can only act out that logic as a vain performance.
Natural language is a system of relative subjects, each with subjective implications relative to the story. So far in computing, we have nothing remotely like that.
Not at all. Contrary to other games where undos are cheating, here they are part of the game. Without them it would be 80% luck and only 20% strategy.
> which is heavily implied
I can't find anything that implies this. It explicitly says:
> This uses undos deliberately rather than only as an emergency
while avoiding undos is mentioned at the end as "The Purist approach", which I read as slightly mocking.
I see it like a chess problem where you have to find the best sequence of moves, so you start off with an intial move, then backtrack, explore another idea, etc. Not like a chess match where of course you cannot undo any move.
My phone uses wpa_supplicant v2.10-devel-11 (from late 2021 I think) and I see in NeoStumbler that the record is at 227 access points (from this vantage point: https://osm.org/go/0GAnN~St0?m)
The query for anyone else who has that app and is curious:
> .he on
> select reportId, count(id) as c from WifiAccessPointEntity group by reportId order by c desc limit 10;
reportId|c
123|227
> select * from PositionEntity where reportId = 123; -- find where this was
Are you sure it's a wpa_supplicant limitation? It sounds like a very arbitrary number, not even 2^8=256 or something, so like it should be trivial to find and chance that constant limit in the source code, if this limit exists
Edit: a quick grep through the source code (`grep -rE '[^0-9]200[^0-9]'`) doesn't reveal anything that looks very promising at first glance. I'm curious what you're running into now though
It's ostensibly a configurable variable (bss_max_count). I bet your phone's system has done so. I'm talking about my laptop and NixOS, and I was definitely getting limited to 200.
Huh, why did I not see that variable in the grep results... ah, that line didn't match because I negative matched 0-9 but not 'nothing' (end of line in the config file).
If it's just a configuration variable though, why bother migrating away instead of configuring it? Or even opening a ticket upstream that the 200 APs limit is causing issues if you would want to go that far. Ditching the software altogether seems radical
Unfortunately, NixOS makes it impossible to configure while NetworkManager is installed. This is because bss_max_count is a runtime var, so you have to use wpa_cli instead of a config, which requires a socket in a dir that NixOS conventionally keeps empty. I decided it wasn't worth the effort to fix.
