cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
Or you could just… learn to use the modern internet that 60% of internet traffic uses? Not everyone has a dedicated IPv4 anymore, we are in the days of mobile networks and CGNAT. IPv4 exhaustion is here today.
Where are you getting 60%? Google’s IPv6 Adoption page has it under 50% still:
(while other stats pages from big CDNs show even less)
If you have ::/0 in your AllowedIPs and v6 connections are bypassing your VPN, that is strange.
What does ip route get 2a00:1450:400f:801::200e (an IPv6 address for google) say?
I haven’t used wireguard with NetworkManager, but using wg-quick it certainly adds a default v6 route when you have ::/0 in AllowedIPs.
You could edit your configuration to change the wireguard connection’s AllowedIPs from 0.0.0.0/0 to 0.0.0.0/0,::/0 so that IPv6 traffic is routed over it. Regardless of if your wireguard endpoint actually supports it, this will at least stop IPv6 traffic from leaking.
ipv4 with an extra octet
that was proposed as “IPv4.1” on April 1, 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110404094446/http://packetlife.net/blog/2011/apr/1/alternative-ipv6-works/
Like… okay… I know this is me in the new brain, I’ll shut down the other one.
the other one: i’m pretty sure you’ve got it backwards, pal
I was referring to the “This is actually a good sign for self driving” part of their comment.
The captcha circumvention arms race has been going on for over two decades, and every new type of captcha has and will continue to be broken as soon as it’s widely deployed enough that someone is motivated to spend the time to.
So, the notion that an academic paper about breaking the current generation of traffic-related captchas (something which the captcha solving industry has been doing for years with a pretty high success rate already) is “good news” for the autonomous vehicle industry (who has also been able to identify such objects well enough to continue existing and getting more regulatory approval for years now) is…
i hope you’re joking. please, tell me you’re joking?
I wish we’d stop calling them “exploding batteries”. The battery isn’t the explosive, it’s the explosives that were hidden in the device.
Do you want to stop calling them exploding pagers too? How about other exploding things? And what should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions be renamed to? Maybe 2024 Lebanon explosions of explosives inside of pagers? 🙄
Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
The title is a copy+paste of the first sentence of the third paragraph, and it is not misleading unless you infer “exploding batteries” to mean “exploding unmodified batteries”. But, the way the English language works, when you put explosives inside an XYZ, or do something else which causes an XYZ to explode, it becomes an “exploding XYZ”. For example:
The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.
That fact also is not what the article is about.
(@Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee:) Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
(me:) Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
(you:) The article literally talks about inserting an explosive layer inside the battery at production. Just like the comment said.
I am really curious: can you tell me, do you actually think the first commenter in fact read the article and was agreeing with its suggestion that the batteries could have been manufactured with explosives inside of them?
(you): It isn’t “any batteries can explode”.
Nobody claimed that, but in retrospect I guess I can see how, read alone, the pull quote I selected from the article to be the title of this post could be interpreted that way.
Of course not, what did you expect?
I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.
i encourage you to re-read the original comment in this thread after reading the article 😂
You are inferring what someone meant, and then applying some super pedantic reasoning.
I think I am inferring correctly, especially since the person you’re talking about replied “of course not” to my question about if they read the article.
Since apparently many people aren’t reading the article: It is about how cheap it actually is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
What? 🤦 The comment I replied to said:
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
It seems clear that “they had apparently been modified at the production level” is referring to the pagers, rather than their batteries. But the article is explaining how it could have been that the batteries were the part of the pager that had the explosives (in which case it was the battery that was exploding).
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
This video is full of jarring edits which initially made me wonder if someone had cut out words or phrases to create an abbreviated version. But, then I realized there are way too many of them to have been done manually. I checked the full original video and from the few edits i manually checked it seems like it is just inconsequential pauses etc that were removed: for instance, when Linus says “the other side of that picture” in the original there is an extra “p” sound which is removed here.
Yet another irritating and unnecessary application of neural networks, I guess.
headline was more exciting before i read the last four words of it