Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962 can call her son in New York, but for the rest of us who are not in that situation, we can just blacklist all those calls and lose nothing. This would even fix spam for the people who opt-in, because so few people have grandmas in rural France that it's not worth it for the spammers to bother anymore.
It is opt/in. There's three categories (according to that defcon talk): call originates from the number it says it does, call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified (only allowed by regulation on legacy links).
Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you think they should. The government would have to make them do it and they'll pretend upgrading is super expensive.
> call originates from our network but we're not sure about the number, and call came to us unverified
I'm saying these two categories should be denied by default by my telecom provider, and the user must opt-in to receiving them.
> Now, operators of those legacy links make A LOT of money for operating them since they carry 100% of the country's spam traffic, and they're not going to shut them down just because you think they should.
Those operators are not my concern, they can do whatever they want. I want my telecom provider to block unknown/unverified calls by default. I have no reason to ever receive a call from an unverified source. Some people might, because they have business or relatives or whatever in such a region, and they can opt-in to receiving them if so.
If your telecom provider stopped carrying unverified calls you'd cancel your service because you'd miss a lot of important calls. If the government required it for all calls though...
Like what? Who is both a legitimate caller and also trying to call me through one of these unverified legacy services? If their calls stopped going through to a huge chunk of their customers (this is one of the reasons receiving unvalidated calls should be opt in, not opt out), why wouldn't they switch to a verified service?
> Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these.
Easier (and correct) fix: Telecoms operators should not be permitted to provide transit to a call that's routed through one of these.
> I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962...
This doesn't make sense. Even my inexpensive Mikrotik switches can augment packets with the ID of the port that they originated from. I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same. The fact that that grandma can send and receive calls tells you that both that that equipment exists and that it knows what port her phone is connected to.
The simplest phone you can attach to any POTS line in the US is the touch-tone phone. [0] It's a microphone, speaker, ringer, switch, and a DTMF tone generator. The most complicated part of this device by far is the tone generator. The line it's attached to provides the power for all of the electronics/electromechanics inside the phone... and is also responsible for activating the phone's ringer and "knowing" the status of the "on hook" switch. The most basic phone models have no memory or logic inside them of any kind.
Given these restrictions, how does one ensure that one can activate the ringer of a single phone (and connect its speaker and mic to that of the caller, and noone else) in a world where all of the human operators were replaced by electromechanical ones, which were then replaced by fully computerized ones? Once one has figured that out, how does one ensure accurate and correct determination of the calling parties, the transit networks, and the duration of the call? One needs to recover your costs, and one uses usage-based billing to do so. [1]
In order to do those things, mightn't the system that that phone is connected to have to have all of the information about the callers, the systems the call flows through, the duration of the call, etc, etc, etc?
[0] Rotary phones are even simpler than touch-tone phones because they replace the tone generator with an elecromechanical gizmo that bangs on the line when it's rotated. Because I vaguely remember hearing that some phone networks were phasing out support for rotary phones, I'm assuming that you're not guaranteed to be able to attach one and have it function.
[1] I'll only briefly mention POTS features from ~35 years ago such as "Caller ID", "Read to me out loud the phone number of my most recent caller", and "Keep calling this number for the next half hour and ring me if they pick up", which had to (and did) work with these dumb-as-bricks phones.
> I do not believe for even a second that Telecoms Grade switching equipment is unable to do the same.
The example should rather have been some telecom carrier in Africa or India. Telco equipment is expensive, the technology is ridiculously complex and getting companies especially in less well-off regions to replace aging stuff and updating it to modern standards is next to impossible. Think about it, the globally connected phone system includes countries where you get 10 GBit/s symmetric fiber in your home and it includes countries where people don't even have running water because they're so poor.
The fact that we in Western countries can have a realtime conversation with someone in the Saharan desert or in an Indian village that requires days worth of travel [1] is nothing short of a miracle.
Odd. I could have sworn that Caller ID, Customer-initiated Dialback, "Tell me the number of my most recent caller", and "Keep calling this number for the next half hour, and ring me if the call is answered" were features that were available on the POTS since the early 1990s. I agree that the tech's complex, but the R&D for the stuff I'm talking about has been over and done with for at least thirty five years. There are adult HN users who have never lived in a world without this stuff.
> ...getting companies especially in less well-off regions to replace aging stuff and updating it to modern standards is next to impossible.
I don't see how that's the problem of "The West"? If it's actually a problem, instruct "Western" telecoms to send a couple-hundred-million dollars in last-gen equipment, along with the techs required to install it and let them declare its original purchase price and the full cost of the manpower as a tax credit.
> ...is nothing short of a miracle.
If we ignore the existence of long-range radio, and if this were prior to 1965 or -at latest- 1970, I might agree. But, like, we've had satellite telecommunications for nearly sixty years, terrestrial microwave transceivers for a couple of decades longer, and short- and long-wave transceivers for far, far longer than either.
Additionally... I don't know if you've noticed, but it's not uncommon to have a satellite phone in your pocket these days.
I am, more in tune with "just get it over with" than ever. Ipv6? 25 years of this crap? should have just said, Jan 1 2001, all routers must support 64 bit ipv4 addresses. Like the chrome HTTPS switch over, JUST DO IT
If you've ever been part of an organization that participated in something like Google Summer of Code, you know this isn't fiction. People really do behave like this.
> I've got research on everyone, and had emails drafted for each one based on what they said. Quotes and figures and all.
Please tell me you did the work to validate that the quotes and figures were not made up by the cheap model. These things make stuff up all the time, you absolutely cannot rely on them without validating the output yourself.
Yep, I manually listened to the meeting recordings (easy to find the spots based on the transcript timestamps) for any quotes. There are also meeting minutes and agendas with supporting docs to corroborate against (e.g. for dollar amounts). They really don’t make stuff up all the time if you root them in data.
> It's almost as if the choice between the two parties is no choice at all.
Hi, I live in Minneapolis/Saint Paul. You may have heard about what the Republicans in the federal government did here a couple of months ago! The only appropriate response to your sentiment would, rightly, get me banned from this website. Please think before you speak.
For those who just watch fox news we're up to an estimated 700 million dollars of damage, completely aside from the human suffering for no definable reasons. The murders and the justification for murders, the protecting of murderers, and the celebration of convicted murderers in the local MN GOP.
What relevance does that have to this discussion of the executive branch causing willful damage? It just sounds like you are trying to say that its either false, misleading, or just a place where that happens so why give a shit.
None of those really seem like worthwhile to bring to this discussion.
I don't know that there is. It takes ages to develop an EV-focused platform, and the lines to manufacture it. Tesla is the only American manufacturer that has already done that work, and they're circling the drain. Aside from them, there's exactly one decent US-owned EV on the market, the Chevrolet Bolt. All of the top-of-the-line EVs are Korean or Chinese, and the 2nd tiers are all European. America's EVs aren't even on the horizon, they'll be playing catchup for decades.
> there's exactly one decent US-owned EV on the market, the Chevrolet Bolt.
I drive a Chevrolet Blazer EV. Test drove a Equinox EV as well. There is the silverado EV as well. Chrysler and Ford are mostly working on plug in hybrids which is 90% of the advantages of an EV for those who charge at home (if people will is debated).
Which is to say the big-3 car makers all have EV or close enough EV cars and are making more.
A major problem is that dealers hate carrying and selling EVs. If you want to get these vehicles you either have to special order them or you have to buy used.
I think a big portion of why Tesla is so prominent is because it's relatively easy to get a Tesla almost anywhere.
*edit* I'm out of date. It looks like the dealers around me are all stocking EVs now.
I'm actually out of date. The last time I searched (Dec last year) it was the case that it was quite hard to find any EV brand that wasn't Tesla. This appears to have changed as now I can find most EV brands in local stock.
The US specific part is that a decent portion of the population makes, at least occasionally, longer trips outside of urban centers where more limited range, longer charging stops, and the need to carefully plan routes to hit chargers (that are hopefully functioning) make ICE derived power more attractive.
You are right, looks like my local chevy dealers also have EVs on their lots. In fact, now that I'm searching this time it looks like most of the other dealers have EVs.
This wasn't the case when I searched around Dec last year.
I wonder if the shift in gas prices has caused all these dealers to start stocking EVs.
This is what I use & like as well, but I definitely think there's space for a more GUI-focused option that isn't Quickbooks or Gnucash. It's not a good fit for me, though, I require my important tools to be open source. Closed source software has way too many misaligned incentives for me to use it for anything important.
I made a very good living developing open source software for more than a decade. Nothing about open source software precludes one from making money, it's just a different business model from closed source.
A business model that supports a tiny fraction of the market. To the extent there is money in FOSS, even then most of it is provided by the funding of big tech (a whole host of some of the most widely-used FOSS, like Linux, LLVM, Go, Rust, C#, Typescript, VSCode, React, are all obviously corporate-backed). Independent developers who can make a living selling FOSS exist, but are absolutely on the fringe.
I know everyone's tired of hearing this, but this doesn't happen on Linux. I know I know, it's different and a little janky here and there and maybe you have to find a replacement for one or two pieces of software. But like, you don't actually have to put up with this. There is a better way.
I recently built 2 mini PCs for my kids to play games on, and went with Bazzite.
It was really surprising how put together it all is. The steam integration is seamless and it can play a ton of stuff even on an older NUC w/out a GPU.
It was the first time I can say that installing a linux OS was easier and friendlier than Windows.
> It was the first time I can say that installing a linux OS was easier and friendlier than Windows.
I'd say that from work experience managing an IT department that maintains and deploys both Windows and Linux machines, the administrative overhead involved in working with Windows first exceeded that of Linux at some point in the Windows 10 life cycle -- at least five years ago. Since then, Windows has been getting worse and worse, and Linux has been getting better and better.
With most corporate software being accessible via the web and/or being cross-platform these days, we're seriously debating moving the standard corporate workstation configuration to Linux.
It's only getting easier and friendlier comparatively. Recently i bought a new computer and installing an external drive and putting kde linux on it was easier than fighting my way through the windows telemetry gauntlet, the setting, and all the bloat. Modern windows disgusts me continuously in new ways
Installing maybe… getting all the hardware to actually work was a completely different story. Broken WiFi was the norm. Bad display drivers that only worked in 640x480 or 800x600. Not to mention consulting website before installing to see how well your laptop was supported and what you could expect to never work.
So years ago you also generally had to understand partitioning and filesystem formats, which most people are clueless about.
Sure, they were learning opportunities, but most people weren’t trying to learn anything. They just wanted to get on MySpace, download free music, chat with friends.
I still have a wifi issue that forces me to pin to a specific wifi network. If I do not, it somehow cascades into a GPU driver failure that breaks everything.
My last laptop used an audio amplifier that made the speakers not work for ~2 years, that required patching the kernel to fix. It's only recently a vanilla version of the kernel works.
using linux feels like macos back in the mid-2000s and windows (in a good way) in the early 2000s, like its some kind "operating system" for you to do things instead of being advertised to...
Coming from 10 years of Linux to macOS, Apple deserves praise for this point too.
I don't use Apple Intelligence, Safari, or Siri on my Mac, and I'm extremely happy to report that Apple does not nag me to use these features at all. THANK YOU APPLE.
Windows would open Edge for random reasons instead of my preferred browser to nudge me to use it, Cortana was a constant reminder in W10 because it was part of Windows Search, and of course, we all know how they push Copilot.
Apple isn't perfect (iCloud is fine on macOS, but iOS is quite misleading and often defaults to on even if you really don't want it), but overall my Mac respects my wishes as a user and it makes me look forward to using my computer as a tool.
To be fair, Apple does do a one-time sales pitch during OS setup, but if you say NO, it remembers you mean NO.
macOS does have its own user-hostile issues, but they are more in the form of making things like running downloaded software and modifying your system irritatingly difficult, and not Windows's pathetic and desperate attempts to cajole you into using their features.
I can't get my ipad to shut up about iCloud storage. At least with windows I know how to turn that stuff off (worse case registry fix). I have no idea how to hack Apple's stuff.
I just got off from their 50GB plan and the amount of nagging has been insane. There's a giant banner in the photos app, a banner in the health app and everything else that I removed from icloud backups, strongly suggesting (in what I must imagine would be a well-studied message designed to induce panic amongst less tech-savvy users) that I am in a perilous situation and must restore icloud backups immediately. Deeply shameful and has made me even more aware of their shenanigans.
I wish I could fully agree. Canonical is a bit pushy: "Ubuntu Pro / ESM subscription will make your machine safer! and it is convenient mega free!! ((for non-business uses))"
Workplace very strictly requires Ubuntu LTS for toolchain & compatibility reasons, otherwise I'd run Debian or Fedora or Tumbleweed with Ubuntu containers/VMs where needed.
Nonetheless, Linux popups and promotions (even from enterprise distros) are not nearly as bad as the Windows 11 experience.
Up until very recently gaming is the only thing keeping my l and millions of others main pc from being Linux or Mac. I dual booted in the past but was annoyed. With all the work steam has put in I’m personally about 6 months out from just dumping Microsoft on all my personal products.
It’s impressive they have dropped the ball so hard that it’s causing a complete rethink for so many users like myself. Bullet >> golden goose.
People will passionately tell each other to vote for [$moralParty], then willingly prop up companies which go against everything they stand for the very next day. Curious indeed.
Same here. What frustrates me is that Apple pretty much invented seamless multiple monitor integration back in the early 90s, but the Apple of today has either forgotten how to do it or they just don't care.
I have a iMac with two external monitors, and during boot it does this crazy dance where one monitor goes on, then off, then two monitors go on, and so on for a few rounds until shit settles and all three are on.
Windows gives you nice sliders for things, which they will happily break on a whim. Linux forces you to memorize a Lovecraftian string of characters to do something, but it will generally stick for a long time.
I use both, with differing ideologies. My Linux is heavily customized with keybinds and semi-niche software that enables my workflows because I know it will stick. On my Windows machines, I've accepted that Microsoft owns that machine and I have to adapt my workflow to fit their sensibilities.
I'm no Windows defender but this is nonsense. Windows has BY FAR the best multi monitor support of any of the major OS's, including any variant of Linux.
Are we talking about the same Windows that moves all your windows around when you temporary disconnect a display, even when the computer is locked?
Or is it the windows that sometimes ends up with windows positioned partially on a display that is no longer connected so that you can't move it because any control for that is offscreen.
How do you get it to work then? Because at the moment whenever I open my Windows laptop plugged into a docking station the screens just come up in a random order.
Sometimes all three are mirrored, sometimes by chance they're the right way round, sometimes the "main" screen is one one of the external monitors and then you're absolutely knackered if you don't manage to convince it to go onto the laptop's panel before you unplug because there's no way to get it back.
It's all just so half-assed.
In Linux multiple monitors have worked perfectly for about 20 years.
You're probably right but it's really sad that an OS that shuffles everything you have open when it hits power save and turns off the screens would qualify as the best.
Easy fix. It should be opt-in to accept a call that is routed through one of these. I know they allow it so some grandma in rural France that still uses a dial phone on a copper line that hasn't been touched since 1962 can call her son in New York, but for the rest of us who are not in that situation, we can just blacklist all those calls and lose nothing. This would even fix spam for the people who opt-in, because so few people have grandmas in rural France that it's not worth it for the spammers to bother anymore.
reply