This is very cool @dhaavi! Can definitely see where you've taken lessons learned from cjdns and yggdrassil.
I hate to nitpick but this project looks promising enough - and the new project you mentioned interesting enough - that I feel the need to. From your FAQ:
> First, there is some structure to the router IPs. While there are special purpose prefixes, most IPs will be in a geo-marked prefix. Every country (+ States in the US) has their own prefix within Mycoria. This means that on the global level, Mycoria routers in the same country share the same prefix. These prefixes are also (tendentially) similar to nearby countries.
Second, within a country prefix, Mycoria uses address-distance routing. This means that packets are sent in the direction of the "address-nearest" other router known. While this is not the most efficient way to route packets, it does work quite well with some additional steps - especially if confined to a smaller geographic region, as Mycoria is doing.
My commentary: One of the unfortunate lessons we learned from the IPv4 internet and management of IANA IPs by the different RIRs (and the subsequent tagging of IPv4 blocks with geographic information) is that layer-8 folks love the idea of layering policy on top of geographic tags. (E.g.: Maxmind says your address is in Pakistan, and according to Pakistani law content offered by another address is verboten, ergo you are blocked.)
Geographic awareness built in to network prefixes may be used against your users in ways that you'd prefer to avoid. Or perhaps it's an acceptable tradeoff for you - it's easy to envision scenarios where 'the juice is worth the squeeze' and users derive enough benefit from geo-aware prefixes to accept the drawbacks. If it's the former, I'd recommend investigating moving from geo-aware prefixes ("I'm within X miles of other people in this jurisdiction") to latency-aware prefixes ("I'm within X ms of other people within this prefix").
(Steelmanning my own recommendation - it's possible that anyone trying to implement layer 8 policies on top of geographical-aware prefixes will just willfuly misinterpret latency-aware prefixes as being close enough to them, which would mean a lot of wasted effort for nothing).
Anyway, just my two cents. Again, very cool project, looking forward to seeing what you build on top of it!
This is what I hope to solve with the private addresses: These are not geo-marked and not routable. Eg. they are randomly generated and cannot be attributed to a geographic location (easily).
Ah nice! Glad to see you've already thought of this. Any sense of what % of addresses you would hope to be private vs geo-marked? (Asking because it's easy to mark all private addresses as being "bad" if they're in the minority, but once they reach a tipping point that becomes infeasible - at least we've seen this with addresses tagged as belonging to VPN providers).
If you have a decent amount of private addresses in the mix (1) such that blocking them would 'break' the mycoria experience(2) then it sounds like you've got a decent solution here - geo-aware prefixes for convenience and private addresses for when you'd prefer the anonymity.
1) I freely confess to not knowing what percentage a good mix would be. 20%? 5%? In practice, going back to the VPN example for IPv4, it's "a high enough percentage of important users complaining that their VPN connections are broken for a long enough time". Depending on the jurisdiction that can be 1% (well off / well connected people in a jurisdiction complaining to the right people that in turn overwhelm management with their complaints) to >20% (not necessarily well off or well connected users, but a critical mass that instead overwhelms ISP help desks with complaints).
2) Assumption: mycoria / the app you're building on top of it becomes so important that breaking it completely is a non-starter for the average ISP.
The subject line doesn't seem to match with the the post it links to - perhaps it's been updated since being shared here? The blog post right now is titled 'the ecosystem is moving', and in the first paragraph states:
"Nothing about any of the protocols we’ve developed requires centralization; it’s entirely possible to build a federated Signal Protocol-based messenger, but I no longer believe that it is possible to build a competitive federated messenger at all."
...which is is a far cry from "why federated protocols don't work". A more accurate headline summary might be "why we believe federated protocols are not competitive for this use case", which has a different ring to it.
That depends: do they typically bust the buyers after they've bought real drugs and already used them? It's all fake bags of white powder that never get used, yeah?
For me this sort of hinges on whether actual child pornography was distributed (and then, i imagine, consumed and re-distributed by pedophiles) in the name of making a bust.
I mean, I think some real drugs get sold, but usually its selling stuff from the evidence locker and busting buyers before they can use it. There's no real equivalent to "after the sale, before the harm is done" in a case like this.
There's also a difference between compromising pictures of real people and non-identifiable non-human bags of powder. Bags of cocaine don't have dignity that the law should be striving to protect.
Sorry, I don't follow. Is that an attempt at a Bill Engvall reference? If so, it's not "flag" but "sign". Otherwise, I'm afraid you've rather lost me. In either case, perhaps you'd care to explain in more detail what you mean by this rather cryptic comment.
"I have flagged your comment for moderator review, as you are using a throwaway account and spreading racially charged rhetoric in lieu of engaging in civilized discussion". I hope that makes things clear.
A nearly year-old and fairly active user with a few thousand karma, making a point that you don't agree with via a phrase which you don't like. No doubt the black man from whom I learned it was racist. But of course it's always far easier to reflexively attempt to suppress, than to engage.
I have gathered the impression in my time here that talking about moderation actions isn't really the done thing. In any case, I see no very probable way in which doing so will add value to the discussion, so you're welcome to the last word if you feel the urge to have it.
I don't feel the urge at all, actually, and since you're engaging in discussion now, I'll address you:
I'm certainly willing to engage with you if you make a point that I disagree with - read this thread and my comments in it for proof of that - but that "phrase I don't like" is a racial slur, full stop, and the idea that you "learned it from a black man" fully excuses it's use in every conversation, in every venue and at any time you like going forward is, well, wrong in a way that I don't think you'd ever be able to accept.
Consider editing your initial comment, and reflect on the idea that butting into a thread with a throwaway racial slur is perhaps not the way to get people to engage with you.
What? No, it's not. It's an intra-group epithet describing someone who is perceived to be selling out his people to an oppressor in exchange for individual privilege. It originated among black people, but the concept isn't exclusive to any one race or group of people, and "sellout" just doesn't carry the same weight of contempt.
I don't mention from whom I learned the phrase to excuse my use of it, which I see no need to excuse in any case, but rather as a less direct way of pointing out that I think you're in error to assume racism here. That you misgather the phrase to be a slur would seem to bear that out.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. Can I ask: would you mind walking up to a group of African Americans in your town, saying that phrase in front of them, and soliciting their take? I think you'd value their feedback more than you do mine.
I love the idea you seem to have that I exist in a monocultural, monoracial vacuum. It's not impossible to live that life in Baltimore, but you sure as hell can't do it and use public transit, except maybe when the Orioles are playing at home.
And, no, I'm not going to call a black man "Uncle Tom", of course. On the one hand, as I said before, that's an intra-group term; used across boundaries - especially that boundary - in that way, it not only fails to make sense but takes on a lot of unsavory connotations that it doesn't have when used within a group. Since we here discuss a case where it is used within a group, I fail to see the relevance. And on the other hand, what sense would that even make?
As far as the value of your feedback goes, what of it has there actually been, beyond "that's bad and you shouldn't say it because I say so"? You haven't even attempted to substantiate your claim. You've just made it, repeated it, and even tried to enforce it by means of moderation. At whatever point you decide you prefer to discuss substance, I'll be happy to oblige you.
>"I have flagged your comment for moderator review, as you are using a throwaway account and spreading racially charged rhetoric in lieu of engaging in civilized discussion". I hope that makes things clear.
You've moved on to civilized discussion - which is why I've started engaging with you - but the racial slur and your insistence that it's `totally just a prank brah context brah cmon` is precious.
You seem to understand the idea that this phrase can be used in at least some context without it being a slur, so I ask - does the above thread, where you jumped in to an existing conversation to use 'Uncle Tom' in a one-line comment lacking any substance or nuance- seem like that sort of context?
I am completely comfortable with your assessment of the value of my feedback, throwanem. (Food for thought: not all vacuums are physical. I'm sure you do, as you seem to assert, run into POC when you're on the train and the Orioles aren't playing; this doesn't have any bearing on your use of this term, or your presence or absence in a monocultural thought vacuum.)
No, I'm done. I've made the points I came here to make. I get that you want to read what I wrote in a way that accords with your prejudices, and that you feel no need to defend or even explain those prejudices but just reiterate them over and over - as though that constituted honest engagement, or anything like an argument.
If you want to double down on the same tactics that just this week have failed to elect you a president, that's your lookout, not mine.
Hilarious that you think I've even voted - I was a Bernie supporter and would have been upset with either Trump or Clinton. Please read this thread again when you're in a better frame of mind, if and when that day should come. And when you do, one more time:
>You seem to understand the idea that this phrase can be used in at least some context without it being a slur, so I ask - does the above thread, where you jumped in to an existing conversation to use 'Uncle Tom' in a one-line comment lacking any substance or nuance- seem like that sort of context?
"Eff you, I gots mine" is not the robust survival strategy you might think it is.
I don't know you, but I hope your mother is doing ok, and I hope she will do better under a Trump presidency than I think she will. There's actually plenty of parts of my life that I'd consider giving up or changing if I could guarantee a better future for both your mom and mine, now that your post implicitly asks that question.
My post did not ask the question. I don't care one whit about your feelings for my mother, because you don't know her at all. You don't even know if she's alive or if I even know her. You are simply virtue signaling.
For that matter, although I don't particularly care, your uncharitable and incorrect summation of my view is also just virtue signaling. We get it! You have tremendous morals, the best morals.
No, I actually want to figure out how to live side by side. This shit is terrifying. Please stop talking past me and imagining an enemy that doesn't exist.
(Also: I'm aware your post didn't ask the question. It was implicit... which is why I said implicitly. I do have the best vocabulary, tremendous vocab words folks. A lot of people are saying Trump voters have trouble with bigly words. Sad!)
My point is that you inferred a question that was not asked implicitly or otherwise, not that I needed a definition of implicit. I did not talk past you. I simply deny your arrogant assumption upon which you base your understanding of me.
Your terror is no more my responsibility than your putative mother's health. I don't consider you an enemy. In fact, I don't really consider you, because as a human being I have limited capacity for things like love and I save that capacity for the many people I actually know and deal with in my life.
I think you're confused on the difference between love, compassion and compatriotism. I don't expect you to love me or anyone outside of your own circle, but if you were hoping to make america great again without compassion or compatriotism, I'll enjoy watching the attempt.
Ahh, now if I were a man who liked reading into things people say, I'd go with inferring that you believe I am a trump supporter. You are incorrect if that is the case.
Now, on to the point. I'm dead curious. Here are my words:
> Literally everything in my life is more important to me than any aspect of your mother
Where is the question implied in there? I endeavor to speak precisely, and I have heard it posited that it is incumbent upon the speaker to eliminate misunderstandings in the listener, so let's put it to the test. Demonstrate how that virtue signalling question you inferred from my words comes from my words and not solely your head.
That I did assume - but only because you misused virtue signaling twice in two sentences, which is a Trumpie tell. You might have just picked it up from Twitter?
Also, don't post an excised version of your flagged tweet and then expect me not to catch it. Nice try, troll. Here's your flag, I was game right up until you were intellectually dishonest and sloppy on top of it.
Hmm. This isn't twitter, and I quoted my entire post. What, exactly, are you on about?
Edit: ah wait I see, you think I'm trying to karma bump my sentiment, but to what end? It's parented under the flagged version of itself and I hardly care if I accumulate more internet points. I'm just trying to figure out why you think flogging your morals at me is worthwhile.
You didn't read the article. The author is from middle america and explaining to those who are not from there how wrong we are in our interpretation of what has happened. Read it, please, it's quite informative.
Again - the author is from Middle America; there is no 'they', it's 'we'. And here's just part of what is said:
"To pin this election on the coastal elite is a cop-out. It’s intellectually dishonest, and it’s beneath us.
We, as a culture, have to stop infantilizing and deifying rural and white working-class Americans. Their experience is not more of a real American experience than anyone else’s, but when we say that it is, we give people a pass from seeing and understanding more of their country. More Americans need to see more of the United States. They need to shake hands with a Muslim, or talk soccer with a middle aged lesbian, or attend a lecture by a female business executive.
We must start asking all Americans to be their better selves. We must all understand that America is a melting pot and that none of us has a more authentic American experience."
"The issue of Islam" pretty much says it all right there. Reducing 1.6 billion people and 57 countries around the world down to a few youtube clips that agree with your priors is what I'm going to politely describe as "an interesting worldview". Here's your flag.
If you think that a reasoned, nuanced argument is going to bring this guy over to my point of view - that view being that reducing 1.6 billion people spread across 57 countries down to a couple of Sam Harris youtube clips is silly - I'll have to disagree. Also: why on earth would you think that?
I have had a reasoned and nuanced argument with some other guy on the topic of Islam the other day on HN. It's here FYI [1].
Once again, I am not reducing all Muslims to Islamists, so your argument fails. In fact, you are trying to reduce any criticism of Islam (the ideology/religion) as attack on Muslims worldwide. This same scare tactic is used by pseudo-liberals who wish to suppress any criticism of Islam in other public spheres too.
I am opposing the ideology of Islam and I do oppose other religious ideologies too. I am not a Christian. I have left all organized religions back long ago.
Sam Harris also is not reducing all Muslims to some thing.
No. I am pointing out that your "criticisms" are conveniently conflated, totally reductive, and divorced from any objective reality. You're doing all the reducing. Re-read your own words. Or as much as are your own, as you seem to have done some copy-and-pasting.
Or? Let's try this a different way: have you ever even attempted to identify what your "issue with Islam" is? You don't seem to have any single articulable criticism or complaint besides "the others are comin', see this scary video!". Have you even thought farther than that? Did you not feel the need to?
See, here's my take: I think you've invented a neat little alternate reality for yourself where you virtue signal your love for the western liberal tradition by valiantly fighting against the Other - one you imagine and encounter only online and never in real life - and now you're full on radicalized by filter-bubble friendly Youtube clips and rare Reddit pepes, imagining the looming Sharia monsters that are a comin'. I think this because, well, you've said as much, pretty explicitly, in your profile on this board. That's sad, and worrying, and I don't want you to think that it's normal or that you're engaged in some sort of normal debate.
Why do you need an Other? Have you asked yourself that? It's clear that you do - but why?
>>Let's try this a different way: have you ever even attempted to identify what your "issue with Islam" is?
My issue with Islam is its ideology and its doctrine. It's very similar to my issue with Nazism and white supremacist ideology like KKK. Do we think, that when someone criticizes Nazism/KKK are they reducing all German/white people to some bad thing? No.
It's very similar when it comes to Islam too. I criticize Islam. I criticize Islam's pedophile, rapist and thuggish prophet Muhammad. I criticize Islam's treatment of women and kaafirs (disbelievers). I criticize Islam's barbaric misogynist doctrines.
>> You don't seem to have any single articulable criticism or complaint besides "the others are comin', see this scary video!". Have you even thought farther than that? Did you not feel the need to?
I gave links to those videos as a starting point for the western world. But I do not base my criticism on these videos. I do base my criticism of Islam on the very foundational scriptures of Islam called Quran and Hadiths. Very similar how I criticize the Nazi ideology based on Mein Kampf.
You may wish to look into those scriptures to educate yourself about the vicious ideology of Islam.
Spoiler: I'm Muslim. Interacting with you, online, in a civil manner.
>It's very similar when it comes to Islam too. I criticize Islam. I criticize Islam's pedophile, rapist and thuggish prophet Muhammad. I criticize Islam's treatment of women and kaafirs (disbelievers). I criticize Islam's barbaric misogynist doctrines.
Again: zero to do with reality. Again: learn to interact with reality and not google. Very telling that you avoided answering any of my prior direct questions.
I've spent too much of my life listening to hate preachers try to misinterpret various Surah and Hadith to achieve objective (x); x is almost always silly, always nationalistic, and always wrong.
Watching you do the same thing to justify your desperate need for an Other - which you still refuse to acknowledge, and which again, is sad and worrying and a sign that you please, should see a doctor for this anxiety - reminds me very much of the behavior of a typical hate preacher. And that extremists of all types have so much in common with each other - namely, the willingness to ignore facts in the pursuit of satisfying dogma.
For what it's worth: if you want to tell me that there is a Muslim, or a group of Muslims somewhere in the world that mistreat women or 'kaffir' or what have you : that would be true! And conflating that group of people with anything that you can reasonably call Islam - a word used to represent 1.6 billion people, 57 countries, and millenia of history - is psychotic, and not a thing you can really do with any other religion or group of people without being called out directly for it, thankfully. Conflating a massive group of people by a cherry picked example of their worst is the exact definition of prejudice. I know that you won't accept that on the face of it, and your knee-jerk reaction is that you're armed with The Truth here - but take a deep breath. Cognitive dissonance can often be difficult to confront head on. Please try to do so.
Now - I believe this is your cue to explain to me that I really just want to turn you into a dhimmi; offer some whack-ass cherry picked mistranslated hadiths to prove that really, these noble savages just need to be shown the light; or copy paste some nonsense /b/ bullet points about how "Islam does X" in order to help you ignore the real human - this one, right in front of you! - telling you that faulty generalizations in the service of your priors is the telltale mark of a bigot. Go ahead, do what you want to do. And then, for the love of God - go to a doctor.
When you get back: why do you need an Other so badly? Second time I'm asking.
>>Spoiler: I'm Muslim. Interacting with you, online, in a civil manner.
Good and thanks for it. I do have many Muslim friends, some from Kurdish land. They are real good people.
>>copy paste some nonsense /b/ bullet points about how "Islam does X" in order to help you ignore the real human - this one, right in front of you! - telling you that faulty generalizations in the service of your priors is the telltale mark of a bigot. Go ahead, do what you want to do. And then, for the love of God - go to a doctor.
Who is doing a faulty generalization here? You may indeed be a good person despite being a Muslim, I have no problem in accepting that. But that doesn't make the ideology of Islam good.
And why only you? There are hundreds of thousands of people out there who are good despite being Muslims. Hundreds of German people living under Nazi regime were good. Does it make Nazism good? No.
>>I've spent too much of my life listening to hate preachers try to misinterpret various Surah and Hadith to achieve objective (x); x is almost always silly, always nationalistic, and always wrong.
Okay, tell me, how, according to you, Islam tells its followers to treat apostates?
Also, tell me, how, according to you, Islam tells its followers to treat homosexuals?
I base my criticism of Islam on such issues.
>>which you still refuse to acknowledge, and which again, is sad and worrying and a sign that you please, should see a doctor for this anxiety - reminds me very much of the behavior of a typical hate preacher.
Thanks for your concern about my health, I am doing fine. Let me assure you, I don't preach hate. I am doing what I can do to help people realize the dangers posed by the ideology of Islam and I am telling them that do not confuse Islam with Muslim people. How is this hate preaching?
What about when Christians do it? Usually results in a viscous slave trade (Africa and the Caribbean) or genocide (colonization of North and Central America).
One side claims there is something fundamentally wrong with the religion of Islam and points to passages in the Quran. That side should, then, also note the fundamental problems with most major religions and point to passages in the Bible (old and new testament), the book of mormon, and other holy texts. But this side does not do that. That indicates to the other side that this is not a logical argument based on genuine fear of a hostile culture, but merely a race/religion war in different clothing (christians fearing muslims).
I wish to make it clear that I am not against Muslim people. But I am against the vicious and barbaric ideology of Islam. Many Muslims (especially Muslim women) are the foremost victims of Islam. So, please do not confuse Islam as an ideology with Muslims as people.
Similar thing applies to Christianity and other religions too. The Western world has been so successful on various fronts (especially on the modern, liberal and progressive cultural front) essentially because they defeated and discarded the barbaric Christianity by what we now call "separation of Church and state".
But Islamists (Muslims who wish/strive to bring Islam as ruler in the world) are trying to bring Sharia in the western world and the liberals here are quite dishonest about it.
> But Islamists (Muslims who wish/strive to bring Islam as ruler in the world) are trying to bring Sharia in the western world a
This is a fantasy that is born out of spending too much time on messageboards and not enough in reality. I get that you think that creeping sharia is on the horizon; go see a doctor about your anxiety issues, is my advice, because that statement is so far from reality that I can't imagine you'd take any other advice I'd give.
>>This is a fantasy that is born out of spending too much time on messageboards and not enough in reality.
Hope this [1] helps you see some reality. It seems UK has already allowed the barbaric and inhumane Sharia to exist there.
So, that's not at all fantasy.
> These illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans.
Respectfully: that is simply not how labor works.
'Illegal immigrants' may flood the job market with workers that are willing (or forced) to take lower pay than most Americans, work longer hours than most Americans, or deal with more hardships than most Americans - but it is the employers role to decide whether they'd rather take on the risk of employing undocumented workers than fixing these conditions. If an employer says "eff it, I'm willing to turn a blind eye and break the law if it means slightly less money spent on wages" - they're the ones at fault.
I'm trying to point out what might seem obvious: focusing on the immigrants here may feel satisfying, but if the employers are not compelled to ameliorate their behavior, then deporting every last immigrant won't change the situation.
It is illegal to hire illegal immigrants but those laws need enforcing. It is the job of The Executive (President Obama) to enforce the laws passed by Congress. But Obama is trying to legislate in place of Congress to allow illegal immigrants to not only remain in the country, but to work here as well.
There was a recent Supreme Court case about the issue which left in place a lower court opinion stating that Obama did not have the right to do what he did.
Thus, while you are correct, it is a systems issue of our federal government refusing to do the job according to The Constitution and enforce the law that leads to the suffering of many Americans who have lost jobs to illegal immigrants.
> This is an unfortunate example of non-finance domain experts, who I'm sure are more than capable in their respective fields, making egregious errors when they try to apply their knowledge in finance.
Full ACK to this statement. I remember when this post was written in 2013 (by the way, can that date be put in the title?), alongside a similar paper arguing Twitter hashtags/likes/retweets could serve as a market signal - mostly for this excellent response:
For those of you dead set against using PA, you may want to look into this project to emulate PulseAudio support for ALSA: https://github.com/i-rinat/apulse
Nice. I dread having to do any audio configuration on linux. I originally hoped that pulse audio would move linux in the right direction, but in my experience things are as messy as ever with one more ugly wart to worry about. It's made me seriously consider purchasing a mac.
FreeBSD audio has been amazing for as long as I've used it.
You can also set these sysctl's:
hw.snd.latency_profile=0
hw.snd.latency=3
And then in your OSS code, use this ioctl:
int cooked = 0;
ioctl(fd, SNDCTL_DSP_COOKEDMODE, &cooked);
The result is that I have lower latency with multiple audio streams on FreeBSD than I do on Windows using WASAPI exclusive mode (where your application takes sole control of the sound card.) Pulseaudio on Linux ... doesn't even come close to either in terms of latency. Easily a 60+ ms latency penalty, which is definitely noticeable in video games.
And the code to output OSS audio is way simpler and easier than WASAPI, ALSA, and Pulse. Even easier than Pulse's simple API wrapper.
I hadn't even considered any of the BSDs (it's for servers in my mind - a stereotype :) ). I'm definitely going to give it a go. I have a small recording setup in a spare room to play with which is currently running linux.
I hate to nitpick but this project looks promising enough - and the new project you mentioned interesting enough - that I feel the need to. From your FAQ:
> First, there is some structure to the router IPs. While there are special purpose prefixes, most IPs will be in a geo-marked prefix. Every country (+ States in the US) has their own prefix within Mycoria. This means that on the global level, Mycoria routers in the same country share the same prefix. These prefixes are also (tendentially) similar to nearby countries.
Second, within a country prefix, Mycoria uses address-distance routing. This means that packets are sent in the direction of the "address-nearest" other router known. While this is not the most efficient way to route packets, it does work quite well with some additional steps - especially if confined to a smaller geographic region, as Mycoria is doing.
My commentary: One of the unfortunate lessons we learned from the IPv4 internet and management of IANA IPs by the different RIRs (and the subsequent tagging of IPv4 blocks with geographic information) is that layer-8 folks love the idea of layering policy on top of geographic tags. (E.g.: Maxmind says your address is in Pakistan, and according to Pakistani law content offered by another address is verboten, ergo you are blocked.)
Geographic awareness built in to network prefixes may be used against your users in ways that you'd prefer to avoid. Or perhaps it's an acceptable tradeoff for you - it's easy to envision scenarios where 'the juice is worth the squeeze' and users derive enough benefit from geo-aware prefixes to accept the drawbacks. If it's the former, I'd recommend investigating moving from geo-aware prefixes ("I'm within X miles of other people in this jurisdiction") to latency-aware prefixes ("I'm within X ms of other people within this prefix").
(Steelmanning my own recommendation - it's possible that anyone trying to implement layer 8 policies on top of geographical-aware prefixes will just willfuly misinterpret latency-aware prefixes as being close enough to them, which would mean a lot of wasted effort for nothing).
Anyway, just my two cents. Again, very cool project, looking forward to seeing what you build on top of it!