Seriously. I don’t get all the over concern over the verbosity. At least in java you can tell what the hell is going on. And the tools…so good. Right now I am in python typescript world. And let me tell you, the productivity and ease of java and c# are sorely missed!

Agreed. The whole idea that they are in it for the “service” is a really naive idea. If we want honest hardworking and qualified people to do the job the salaries should be in the 500k to 1.5m (senate) range. Then knock out the corruption.

According to this link [1] 200k would put someone above the 80th percentile and not far below the 95th percentile in terms of household income for the DC metro area, so I don't see how that could be considered "underpaid", especially when you consider the benefits.

[1] https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/District-of-Columbia...

The type of person who gets elected to Congress is likely to be far above average in charisma/intelligence/skill, and hence underpaid relative to what they could attain in the private sector

If someone is paid 500k-1.5M, do they suddenly lose interest in further enriching themselves? I don't understand this argument.

I mean, it sounds dumb, but returns from further wealth are logarithmic; after a certain point, the only thing you can buy more of is power. And you’ve already got that, in this case!

If you’re in a situation where getting more wealth could endanger your power, it makes sense not to wealth-max since, again, what else could you buy with it? But you need to get into the “what else could you buy with it” regime for this reasoning to make sense.

Someone who only has basic needs gets there pretty early. But even the relatively unenlightened don’t need the second jet except, yannow, for power.

i'd support that if and only if it required congresspeople to divest from individual stocks. with perhaps some compromise like...maybe they could hold "total market" index funds, or are only able to trade once a year, or etc

This is pretty easy to work around via vpns etc. Guess its another barrier…for now. But it forces escalating tactics by the other side to appear legit. So if ppl come to trust the “source” information. It might actually end up worse in the long run as the sources are all spoofed. Would need a more advanced system using signatures and real life verification to actually know a source. Similar to a ca with all of its drawbacks. Point being, this move is kind of a wash.

But it was not expected, it's a one trick pony, but it worked. There's a lot of accounts that were passing as being from one country, and they ended up being some content farmer from a third world country with a gdp per capita of 2000$.

It was in part fueled by Twitter's idea of paying content creators, which made the whole thing an engagement bait party, it gave an economic incentive to countries with cheap and idle workforces to work 9 to 5 on posting whatever got likes without even understanding it, even it was political.

I believe it also shows which country's app store the user downloaded from which might be harder

So, do nothing eh? Places like somethingawful demonstrated that even a token fee toll to trolls was enough.

Forcing these orgs to pay foe their propaganda is significant.

And once theyre in vpns, those are fewer IPs to ban.

No I think we need to do more, not nothing. This was an interesting step to highlight the problem.

I think Twitter is beyond help though. It's just another gab now. But it would be interesting for other socials.

Well, itsnot isolated to twitler. Whoever there thought this was going to add value to the product is either delusional or knew exactly how bad it is.

Go to reddit and sort by top/hourly and youll find plenty.

Not to mention these modern showers that have a slab of glass on the 1st 3rd but then open door for the rest such that water leaks all over the place. Looks great on insta but sucks at being a shower.

I think it might be as simple as ipv4 is just nicer to look at…maybe we should have just done “ipv5” and added another block. Eg 1.1.1.1.1. I know its stupid, but ipv6 addresses are just so hard to remember and look at that I think its just human nature to gravitate towards the simplicity of ipv4.

The problem with "add another block" is, that you have to change everything everywhere to make it work... and if you're changing everything, why not expand it properly.

Only a tiny minority of people have to look at those addresses, the majority just types "facebook", enter, clicks on first google result and gets facebook (because ".com" is too hard to write).

Who remembers IPv4 addresses? If you have more than a small handful of devices in your network you're probably going to want some kind of name service.

dead::beef is just as memorable as 1.1.1.1, and my v6 delegated prefix is just as unmemorable as my public v4. The "easier to remember" argument just sucks hard.

This was all discussed at length in 1993.

I don't think many people are memorising a bunch of wildly different IPv4 addresses either.

At best, I remember the prefix of my private network, and a handful of single-number suffixes of important hosts (i.e. my LAN is 192.168.1.x, and I remember that .100 is my local file server...)

> I think it might be as simple as ipv4 is just nicer to look at…maybe we should have just done “ipv5” and added another block. Eg 1.1.1.1.1.

This was discussed in the early 1990s. Criteria that were to be used for selecting then-IPng (§5.1: 10^12 / 2^40 was the minimum):

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726

The winning proposal, SIPP, was originally 'only' 64 bits, but it was decided to go to 128:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752

> I know its stupid, but ipv6 addresses are just so hard to remember and look at that I think its just human nature to gravitate towards the simplicity of ipv4.

If only there was a system that allowed for easy to remember human labels to be translated to a machine-usable sequence of bits that we call "an address"…

Eh. Judging by the large negative response I think the point might still have a point. Can you quickly rattle out ipv6 cidr blocks when you are setting up network configs? Most can grok and crank on ipv4 no problem. But for ipv6…its to the calculator. Not saying its a valid reason. Just saying ppl are lazy sooo if you want something adopted you might have to lean into lazy.

Orrr AWS could just buffer it for you. Algo.

1) you hit the cap 2) aws sends alert but your stuff still runs at no cost to you for 24h 3) if no response. Aws shuts it down forcefully. 4) aws eats the “cost” because lets face it. It basically cost them 1000th of what they bill you for. 5) you get this buffer 3 times a year. After that. They still do the 24h forced shutdown but you get billed. Everybody wins.

The real take away is that so much functionality depends on a few players. This is a fundamental flaw in design that is getting worse by the year as the winner takes all winners win. Not saying they didn’t earn their wins. But the fact remains. The system is not robust. Then again, so what. It went down for a while. Maybe we shouldn’t depend on the internet being “up” all the time.

What if it’s a “thirty day” window? Safe?

Yes, my understanding is that only digits are meaningless per the supreme court's ruling there

No you don’t select the post. No you don’t select the guy. Hence the point. Agreed they are annoying.

Wow. Where are the actual details about the threat, what models are affected etc? How to mitigate the threat? Totally useless.

> Where are the actual details about the threat,

I think the Chinese do not want American backdoors in their products.