>>26495
Are other consumer routers similarly vulnerable? Is there a router that isn't leaky like a sieve?

>>26496
> Are other consumer routers similarly vulnerable?
Yes. Both home/small business and corporate.

>Is there a router that isn't leaky like a sieve?
For home or small business use you want OpenBSD with PF and a copy of https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-PF-No-Nonsense-OpenBSD-Firewall/dp/1593275897/ or something very much like it.

Most corporate risk analyses assume that the network is compromised and work on segregating data, incident response, and "need to know" policies. In other words I wouldn't trust a Cisco more than a Juniper more than I would MS Word 2007 - they're all heaps of shit to begin with before we even start talking about bugdoors.

>>26498
> For home or small business use you want OpenBSD

Running on what? Look for something small, fanless and entirely libre and OpenBSD compatible and options quickly shrink.

>>26569

Can't you just throw OpenBSD on a rpi and be done with it? What do you need "libre" anything for? Everything you want in a routing / firewalling setup comes pretty much out of the box.

Of course if OpenBSD never got around to doing an ARM port just ignore my ignorance and try buggering around with iptables on a locked down Linux instead.

You can get loads of PFsense boxes on ebay.

>>26563
You say what they are doing "works every time", and you've illustrated it with an image suggesting they are 'shooting themselves in the foot'.

Well which is it?

Very happy we are finally here with it.

I've managed to get a handful of GDPR emails from sites I've never used, so now I can see where people have used my details or which idiots don't know their own email addresses.

>>26566

There's an american bloke who has the same name as me, and it seems his email must have an underscore or a dot in it somewhere but is otherwise identical to mine, so I keep getting emails about the warranty expiring on his Buick and the occasional forward from his family when people type it wrong.

>>26567
I think it is gmail which ignores the dots - have seen the same.

Absolutely fucking mental. Iverson had a second crack of the whip with J, which is only slightly less mental. APL-derived languages are apparently modestly popular amongst quants, but it's always struck me as a kind of Esperanto of programming languages - theoretically brilliant, but not particularly useful in reality.

Damn you, I may have to watch this in its entirety.

>>26557

Allow me to steal the rest of your evening:

>>26555
No wonder nobody takes APL seriously if Jeremy Corbyn's pushing it.

>>26534
But isn't this all a bit out of date now?

I might be talking complete bollocks here, but my understanding is that if OP is still on an ADSL line, then yes the signal is travelling down copper all the way to the exchange and into the MSAN at the exchange or into the equipment of whatever provider has installed LLU.
But if you've switched to VDSL/FTTC, the copper wire has been terminated at the street corner box, which is now the MSAN. And as far as I know, there is no provider running their own equipment here.

Fuck, lads.

Strowger switches are fascinating to watch in action.

>>26544

If you like complicated mechanisms, you might enjoy these:

>>26545
Ironically enough I'm an electronic engineer so my ilk have made all these mechanisms useless. But it gives me a pause to think -- have we reached some sort of technological threshold?

By that I mean 70 years ago, I'd say pretty much all technology was understandable by a layman -- you can see how a Strowger switch works, how carburettors in car engines worked, a radio tuner, etc.

Now, most technology is only understood by people who specialise in that field. A farm hand could explain how a carburettor works, but even I couldn't fully explain how a modern EFI works without spending time reading up on it.

I might not be accurately putting into words what I mean here, but it seems to me like at some point in the last couple of decades we've reached a point where pretty much all technology is now out of the realm of understanding of most people.

>>26546

>have we reached some sort of technological threshold?

Undoubtedly. We've reached the point that nobody really understands anything. Our technology has advanced through specialisation and the division of labour. We depend totally on trusting other parts of the supply chain, because a human life isn't long enough to learn all this stuff.

Most electronics engineers don't really know how how IC manufacturing works. We might have a slightly hand-wavy overview explanation involving photomasks and doped silicon, but we couldn't make a transistor to save our lives. Many IC manufacturing companies are fabless - they know how to tape out a chip, but they're happy to leave the job of actually etching the wafer and bonding the die to a pure-play foundry. Most software developers don't really understand how hardware works. They might half-remember a few university lectures about registers and ALUs and DRAM, but they couldn't build a basic circuit from discrete logic.

There's nobody on earth who truly understands how their smartphone works. Every component embodies multiple lifetimes worth of expertise, a specialism of a specialism of a specialism.

The capacitor plague is a good example of when this all breaks down. Hundreds of millions of devices failed because second-tier electrolytic capacitor manufacturers didn't understand the electrolyte formula that they had copied from the top-tier Japanese manufacturers. EEs specified cheap caps, without realising that they were sabotaging their own products because of some ultra-specific chemistry related to electrolyte outgassing.

>>26521
My wife chose this song to walk down the aisle to. This version, I believe.

Why did you post this in /g/?

>>26522

g = games

>>26523
No, /e/ is video games. /g/ is technology. This is neither, you've literally just posted a video of a lass playing the harp with no context. It's as low effort a thread as I've ever seen.

>>26521

I'd like to have this pasty wench play on my traditional instrument if you catch my drift.

>>26516

"Slightly" is an understatement. If the possibility is real, it might well outlaw his chosen field. It'd be naive to think it ridiculous he might want to downplay it.

That you seem to be basing your opinion on one talk by one man in the field is not ideal, either, though it sounds like a compelling talk nonetheless - did he address how you might restrict an artificial intelligence from making a logical leap that may endanger humans regardless of it's intentions - the problem, as discussed, of your smart car having to decide which human to kill in an accident?

>>26517

Petroleum geologists are remarkably optimistic about climate change.

>>26518

Oil companies are the ones spreading the climate change apocalypse hoax so that they can have even more control over the energy supply.

>>26519

>>26517
That's not me. The talk was 2 months ago, from what I remember he may have mentioned kill switches and robots just following code, though I'm not sure. You might be better off emailing him yourself: nickh[at]robots.ox.ac.uk

>>26479
For me it saves power on my phone to use another small device for songs, but I'm often going long distances without the ability to stop and charge along the way. Plus >>26480

I've got a Sansa Sport, it's essentially the same thing, only downside is not being able to slap rockbox on it but aside from that it's grand and the battery lasts forever.

As a result of this post, I dug my Clip out for the first time in a few years. The headphone port is dodgy, and afaik it just needs a re-solder but I had a decent phone by that point so just forgot about it. They are very good, but if you have a large collection of music, Rockbox is unusably slow.

>>26475
>iPod nano 6th generation, I'm assuming you can get a used one for next to nothing these days.
Not really. You can get the 8GB ones for less than £50 if you're patient on ebay, but the 16GB ones still go for £80+, and as you say, you have to deal with iTunes. Some don't mind, it's just an inconvenience as far as I'm concerned. I'm also the kind of twat who downloads FLAC where it's available, and in their boneheaded way Apple still refuse to support it - you've got to convert to MP3, or ALAC, their proprietary lossless format.

I got tired of running my phone down, so picked up a little DAB/FM unit. It's surprisingly good for what it is, and lasts about six hours per charge.

Anyone ever used wireless headphones, jogging type or otherwise? I've been thinking of shelling out for some in the house, it'd be great not be tethered to the desk.

(Sorry to jack your thread with that last query, OP.)

>>26448
>that moment as a kid

I have a distinct memory of being about Year 2 aged and clocking that I could actually read in my head rather than out loud, and then bounding over to my parents' bed on a Saturday morning with a Roald Dahl book in hand to proudly display to them my latest development in reading ability. In my head.

>>26448

I remember the LOGO robot they dusted off every so often in ICT. It was enough to get the idea of stringing simple commands together to make a more complex action, but sadly in my day that's about as far as it went, that and a bit of Lego mindstorms.

I'd have been well into the python minecraft thing or scratch if it'd been available then. Being able to take home a raspberry pi might well be the thing that makes programming more of a basic skill than a specialist one.

>>26450
That's adorable.

>>26454
I was gifted a Raspberry Pi two Christmases ago, but it's still in the box. As an adult who has the time?

>>26455
Plenty of people; that's why FOSS exists -- most people do it in their spare time, very few of them are paid.

>>26456

In my experience they're either students, people who get paid by their company to work on a FOSS project that said company uses, or professional bellends and wankers. Which is why most of FOSS is utter toss.

After working for 10+ hours staring at WinDbg, gdb, or IDA Pro the one thing I really really don't want to do when I clock off is think about fucking computers.

>>26442
They are meant to be waterproof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeYUSrwgmk

There's a video of an older model (G3) going an hour in a fishtank but I can't find that right now.

Did yours break?

>>26445
Fortunately, I'm not in the phone repair game - but I suspect I could do that. Combination of BGA / CSP putting on / taking-off machine and vapour phase reflow oven, and it'd be not much worse than usual.
It's actually quite a nice piece of design. I'm a little surprised they didn't flood the volume inside with something heat conductive and water repelling, just to piss repairers off more.

>>26446

It broke, as in it was fucked, it didn't break as in the screen cracked or anything. Basically it sat in clean (as in clean as bog water can be) toilet water for less than a second before I pulled it out. There was no physical damage to the phone, but the touch screen instantly stopped working. The fact that the fucking useless piece of shite doesn't have a removable battery meant that I couldn't turn it off and the bag of rice trick didn't really pan out. Did a charge-back on my credit card for the fuck of it.

>>26451

Interesting. Mine is definitely splash proof, and drop-in-sink-with-tap-running proof, I have the earlier model with removable battery (same one as the bucket video).

Maybe the newer ones aren't for whatever daft reason.

>>26449

I'm honestly surprised they don't cover everything in epoxy at this point. I've seen some chinese phones do it.

>>26425
They are absolutely fantastic.

>>26421

I've been hovering about buying some of these Aukey's for a while, so thank you for having a go. I'm really pleased that you can get cheap mechanicals now, and twenty quid is just insane.

Are they more robust than normal keyboards? I mean are they less prone to sticky keys if you hold one key down a lot? e.g. the shift key to shift-left-click links instead of right-clicking them.

>>26437
Keep your keyboard clean and that won't be a problem on any keyboard. I can't speak for the Aukey, as I'm not OP, but the Model M has the most stable, least wobbly/sticky keys of any keyboard I've ever tried.

>>26437

Cherry MX switches are designed and tested for industrial applications and have a rated lifespan of 20 million keypresses (50 million for the non-clicky linear variants). Cherry MX clones (Kailh, Gateron, Outemu) seem to be similarly durable, although their quality control probably isn't quite as tight. Normal membrane keyboards don't usually have a rated lifespan, but the few that do are usually rated for less than 5 million keypresses.

If a mechanical switch does ever fail, it can be replaced - they're commodity components that are individually soldered to a PCB. If your spacebar gets wobbly, you can buy a replacement stabiliser or keycap. Membrane keyboards are all-or-nothing - if one key fails, the whole keyboard is scrap. Decent mechanical keyboards are also much more durable than their membrane equivalents, with solid aluminium or steel backplates and keycaps made from resilient PBT plastic instead of the softer ABS.

>>26427
Now all you need is a problem causing program, and maybe you can evolve the two into skynet.

Jugs go in /x/ m8.

>>26408

I hate to be the grumpy old man not really, but you kids don't know how good you've got it. Back in my day, bands would scrimp and save for a couple of days in a crap demo studio. We usually booked the overnight shift because it was slightly cheaper. I can't begin to describe the heat and smell of a room that's lined in acoustic foam, full of hot analogue equipment, completely unventilated and being used 24/7. A reel of 2" tape cost a couple of hundred quid and only held 16 1/2 minutes of multitrack audio, so keeping your multitracks was an absurd luxury. The closest thing we had to home recording was a Portastudio, which cost about as much as a top-of-the-range Macbook. The only way to get your music heard by a wider audience was to send a tape to John Peel and cross your fingers.

Paying CDbaby £35 to release your album to the world is pocket money in the broader scheme of things. You don't need a record deal, you don't need a studio, you don't have to pay for pressing and you get to keep the majority of your royalties.

>>26409

You're not wrong, though there was nowt wrong with Portastudio. The record labels ran on cassette for a while, back when they'd get 15 million demo tapes in from their A&R.

Computer recording is still a very recent luxury - even when I was getting into the game in the naughties it was an exciting new novelty to record to HDD. I'd argue you still need to spend money (or invest time learning the skills) to get a usable demo.

Audio recording will however always be a bizarre fight between bleeding edge digital technology and a rack full of weird tube pres and compressors and a bucket reverb you found in someone's garage. I love it.

>>26409

>get to keep the majority of your royalties.

That's the problem though, Before the 90s happened artists got a pretty decent deal, then it got progressively worse but still alright, and now you get a cheque for 25p from PRS every three months. The fact that it's piss easy to get your music out there is both a blessing and a curse - it has diluted the pool somewhat.

>>26411

>Before the 90s happened artists got a pretty decent deal

We really didn't. They looked like OK deals because records sold in fantastic quantity, but the absolute percentages were horrible.

If you were a big artist and had a really good agent, you might have got 18% net. Out of that share, you paid for promotion, pressing and distribution. That tour bus? It's coming out of your royalties. The fancy sleeve with the holographic artwork? It's coming out of your royalties. The label takes the majority of the royalties, but then dumps all of their costs onto the artist. That 18% net deal gets whittled down to about 2% gross. Major artists might have been millionaires, but that's only because their labels were earning hundreds of millions. It was daylight robbery, but they got away with it because there was so much money sloshing around.

Deals started to look worse in the 90s, but that's mainly because CD sales started to collapse after the launch of Napster. The cost of recording and promotion were relatively fixed, so an increasing proportion of artists found themselves failing to recoup. Things only started getting objectively worse in the late 00s, when labels started offering 360 deals that covered record sales, live revenues and merch.

A notorious example of dirty record label accounting is something called breakage. Back in the days of vinyl, record labels would deduct about 20% of the artist's royalties for breakage, ostensibly because vinyl records were fragile and a lot of them got broken before reaching the retailers. The idea that one in five records were broken in transit somewhat stretches the limits of plausibility, but ho hum. When CDs arrived, the record labels were advertising them to the public as unbreakable, but they still charged 20% breakage. Ostensibly this was because the smaller CDs were easier to shoplift. When iTunes came along, the labels still charged 20% breakage for something that's literally impossible to break. It's 2018, most recording revenues are from streaming and the labels are still charging 20% breakage.

>>26409

I certainly agree with most of your post.

I first started learning production techniques in the mid 00's before the "home recording revolution" really took off, but if anything my feelings are mixed at best about what it has done for music as a whole. Back then, there was no room for "all the gear, no idea" types. Anyone can play at being a musician these days, and it's harder for the ones with talent to shine out above the sea of rubbish- Which has only reinforced the power of labels and publishers.

Things have just gone completely the opposite of how I hoped they would, really. I was one of those people who really believed in the whole "Music can just be free for everyone, and we'll make all our money on gigs and merchandise!" utopian mindset in the early days of online distribution. No need for labels, kills the concept of piracy dead... But here we are a decade later, and it's pretty much just the same as it ever was, only there are no physical copies any more.

>>26363
Would you mind mentioning why you didn't like it for games? It's slightly annoying since some games letter box as they don't support this wide a resolution (and this particular screen has a noticeable amount of backlight bleeding) but for games that do I find it quite nice. As long as your setup doesn't choke rendering the resolution and, for FPS games, there's an FoV slider you can just plain see more; I don't see the down side.

>>26364
> generally things are happier when I pretend it's two screens and have two windows occupying half of the screen each. Still, I like the setup.

>>26365

It was a very subjective thing for games - I actually don't like a massive FoV - if you do, it's no problem, but it makes me feel a bit queasy. Having ultrawide just makes everything visually seem a bit 'off'. Perhaps I could have gotten used to it. If you like it you like it, I suppose, but I could never get my head around it, no pun intended.

The only thing we ever found it useful for was showing a big long ableton or Logic project.

>>26367
Thanks, I never knew that too wide an FoV could be an issue (only the inverse).

>>26416

I don't know if I'm just an outlier, but it definitely gives me a sort of motion sickness.

I've hit a point where I'd rather play games on the sofa looking at a nice telly, but that's not exactly the discussion so I'll be quiet.