frezik

Reading this reminds me of this little passage:

"In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden. The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already." - 1984

If we add a novelty bike lane, what's next? Novelty unicycle lane? Novelty camel lane? There is no end to silly positions on things that nobody is asking for but I can pretend they do. You people need some common sense.

Takes me back to the early post-9/11 days where lots of random shit is terrorism. Not back to anyplace I wanted to be, but it does take me back.

I choose to believe every single word of it. The universe is more interesting if it's true.

Have you ever chained three Cisco 2600 routers together and then successfully ping'd clients on each end? Do you know what BGP is? OSPF? Do you know the difference between routing and routed protocols?

I know you don't, because people who do don't make the claims you're making.

No they fucking don't, that's not what routers do. You don't know what you're talking about.

And don't fucking tell me NAT is for security, either.

Least surprising headline of the year.

If they don't respect the preferred names of trans people, then they shouldn't be afforded the same respect in return.

On Christmas night, does Ted Cruz leave a can of beans out in case Rorschach visits his home?

Skype won't be supporting anything at all very soon.

What happened with Vonage is something that could happen with any kind of instant messaging, including things like Discord.

With everything directly addressable (not just static addresses, but directly addressable), an IM/VoIP service can simply connect to the recipient. No servers are necessary in between, only routers. That doesn't work with NAT (CG or otherwise), so what you have to do is create a server that everyone connects into, and then that forwards messages to the endpoint. This is:

• More expensive to operate
• Less reliable
• Slower
• A point for NSA eavesdropping (which almost certainly happened)

This is largely invisible to end users until free services get enshittified or something goes wrong.

Yes, it's only tangentially related to static addresses, but it's all part of the package. This is not the Internet we should have had.

And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT

Your router has NAT. That's the problem. CGNAT is another problem. My C&C: Generals issues did not have CGNAT.

Pirating Harry Potter stuff is now not only a moral thing to do, but almost a moral obligation.

. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .

Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.

. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .

But they do work better without NAT. That's somewhat separate from static addresses.

My old roommate and I had tons of problems back in the day when we tried to host an Internet game of C&C: Generals behind the same NAT. I couldn't connect to him. He couldn't connect to me. We could connect to each other but nobody outside could. It's a real problem that's only been "solved" because a lot of games have moved to publisher-hosted servers. Which has its own issues with longevity.