Losing all of your data is not a nothingburger.

And should be expected at any time without backups

> Just click no/decline/reject all the way, what’s so difficult about it?

Things like this:

> Don’t click “Upgrade to Priority & 2 Cabin Bags”. This one is particularly sneaky as it doesn’t have a “No” option, you must dismiss the window.

The word "packet" in the headline is misleading, because that implies it's exploitable remotely over the network, but it's not.

It's entirely reasonable for them to be really annoying to legitimate users while still being useless at their intended purpose. Just look at DRM.

It means that if you root your phone or use a custom ROM, Firefox will help remote third parties detect that you did so, so that they can block you from accessing them.

Well that's unfortunate.

> No, that would be reverted for "violating the author's intent" if you edited an existing answer

Can you link to an example of when that happened when it shouldn't have?

> if you posted a new answer it'd be permanently at the end of the list because it would never attract many votes due to being at the end of the list.

No it wouldn't. They added a new answer sort called "trending" and made it the default specifically to fix that problem.

I think the weirdness comes from the use of multiple addresses at once, specifically fe80::whatever addresses always being present and getting used even on normal setups when everything's working fine and a global address is configured, as opposed to 169.254.whatever addresses, which most networks never intend to use and so usually only show up when something is wrong.

Isn't 127/8 always present in IPv4, without I'll consequences?

I meant it's one address per interface, and loopback has always been its own interface.

One address per host is more common in serious networks that don't have endless IP addresses (10/8 block) allocated to them.

There is no problem with allocating one 127.0.0.0/8 to every interface on your host, because 127.0.0.0/8 is only ever accessible to the host itself. So even if you have multi-homed a single routable IPv4 address to 2 NICs on your server (for redundancy), you can still assign 127.0.0.1 to the first and 127.0.0.2 for the second, which you can then use to bind a port to a specific interface in the pair. (I don’t know if anyone actually does this.)

How would the receiving host know which 127 address you imagined belongs to it?

What do you mean “receiving host?” 127/8 is reserved for loopback. If you bind a socket to an interface with an address in that range, you can only use it to communicate with yourself. The sending and receiving hosts are the same.

I mean the host that receives the packet. Weren't you suggesting to use 127/8 as an alternative to link-local addresses?

No, I was saying that you can assign different loopback addresses to different interfaces even if the interfaces have been assigned the same routable IP address. This lets you distinguish them.

On my Mac, however, loopback addresses are only assigned to the `lo0` interface, not to physical interfaces. I don’t know anything about how other platforms handle it, so I caveated my explanation with “maybe nobody does this in practice.”

How does a loopback address for each interface help you do link-local stuff?

I really wish FUTO would stick with FSF-approved licenses.

Do you know their rational behind their license? Louis said he was looking into a dead man's clause to make it free software if they ever stop developing it iirc.

Just typed this with swipe typing on the keyboard and damn it's as good as Gboard.

You can contribute to the dataset, which is mit license, here:

(https://swipe.futo.org/keyboard)

They're similar in that they're both new things that are worse than what they're meant to replace.

They are actually both much better than the things they replace, but a bunch of whiner babies can't stand the thought of anything changing and will claw and scream while being dragged into the future.

Systemd-resolvd is a bad DNS resolver and journalctl makes logging needlessly complicated and log files slow to read. Also, socket activation is basically xinetd and we got rid of it because it's a brittle hack, also slower than starting stuff as soon as possible if you actually need it.

I’ll agree with some parts of this as I have some big issues with parts of systemd. But writing service files with systemd is so much better and having a unified interface into logs is really really nice.

Sure, there are a few things it's better at. I don't think it's entirely bad, just that the good things are way outweighed by the bad.