It's more of a good thing that, in most cases, it's on devices that won't send it any packets unless a client first authenticates to a Wi-Fi station or physically plugs into an Ethernet port.
They're objecting to use of their cloud service, and they're also disabling local-only mode thus forcing use of their cloud service, and their software is required to be AGPL (because that's how they themselves received it) so they're required to allow you to clone it and modify it but they just don't want you to.
It's "I would like to take this free software so I don't have to write it, oh and by the way I want to make everyone dependent on me now for enshittification reasons, so kindly fuck off and let me use this software just by myself. I take, you no take. Understand?"
It's already gone. This whole issue kicked off in January 2025: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/qwL63 - your only options were to stay on older firmware (and even then, the T&C's are sketchy, it worries owners there's no guarantee Bambu won't change their mind) or, if you upgrade, you push everything through Bambu's cloud services forevermore, and no backsies. Only a handful of operations can then be done by directly talking to the device, from that point on it only speaks to its real owner, Bambu.
Bambu's blog mentions LAN Mode. What they fail to mention is that LAN Mode still requires their cloud service for authentication, i.e. they get to cut you off any time they want. They also removed the ability for third party software to talk directly to the printer, it instead has to go through their closed-source "Bambu Connect" handler running on the same computer, with very limited functionality, and only if Bambu Connect chooses to pass on the message.
If investors invest heavily in lemon juice, then go around hyping it and selling it with the promise it makes you invisible to cameras (which it doesn't), it doesn't matter how stupid and gullible the rubes who fall for that are, the investors bear the responsibility for giving them that idea, when people start attempting to rob banks with lemon juice on their faces.
Hype is bad. Unwarranted hype is worse. Enabling people who can't do a thing to do what they think the thing is, but isn't, because they don't know any better, is inflicting a pox upon the world.
Well.. it was ~6 years and ~10 billion payments ago, the clients have been fixed but the "hack" is still there, it has caused no harm as far as I can tell. Worst case scenario it's useless, best case scenario it prevents regressions.
The issue with things that client must not do is that they might still do them, and users don't care whose fault it is. It's important to have auxilliary mechanisms to mitigate these.
That it may be there or not doesn't mean it "caused no harm". It sounds like yet another carbuncle added in haste and then never fixed properly, leading to 6 years of fear of touching it.
If it's truly intended, it needs to be part of the official spec, with a robust justification of why it's there at all. Neither server nor client ought to have unnecessary and undocumented things "just in case", because that breeds a culture of uncertainty.
If you fear client regressions, make it a mandatory part of the client's test suite. You control the client, right?
> Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves
Clifford Stoll's own Facebook page saying he's not dead can be cited on Wikipedia, even if Facebook itself (or Clifford's non-expert opinions) are unreliable
The single domain here is a ccTLD, and DNS's heirarchical nature means your personal domain's redundant DNS can't mitigate an outage at the ccTLD level.
Sorry, no. I was responding to "I am reminded of the warning that zonemaster gives about putting your domain name servers on a single AS, as is common practice for many larger providers."
That is not the ccTLD, that is an individual domain and its name servers. I recall being given that warning for early domain registrations.
There are a lot of NPP users out there, and probably the most important thing, given that they use it to edit all their files, is that they can trust the software. Some rando out of nowhere saying they've written "NPP for Mac" is red flag central.
When a military achieves something and there's intense speculation on how they did it, they will want to obfuscate how they did it. One of the best ways to do that is to give a range of different explanations, some fanciful, some plausible, none of which are completely accurate, leaked to a range of credible and non-credible people. A disinformation campaign.
reply