cmatthias

8 ms·

31.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I think there are some very rational reasons for hating or at least strongly disapproving of the new owner. For example, if the new owner of the company I worked for demanded on a Saturday that a new feature needs to be ready for testing by
32.
by cmatthias 4y ago
The author of the guide linked to by OP has a series of docs for resetting the 6610 to factory settings and licensing all the ports. My understanding is that especially for the old switches like the 6610, it’s not possible to buy licenses a
33.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I read a bunch of the author’s guides and purchased an ICX6610 as my main switch for home and an ICX7150-C12P for my attic, with a 10gbe fiber link between the two. It’s total overkill but both are really nice pieces of equipment. I use the
34.
by cmatthias 4y ago
This is incorrect; see my response elsewhere in the thread for details. Express written consent is always required to send marketing messages or make marketing calls to personal (residential land-line or mobile) phone numbers.
35.
by cmatthias 4y ago
This definitely makes the situation quite a bit more sticky, however hope is not completely lost IMHO. For example, there have been several cases recently dealing with binding arbitration clauses and the TCPA, and in several of them, the bi
36.
by cmatthias 4y ago
Yep. Since I'm not a lawyer it probably wasn't necessary to include the "not legal advice" bit, but I'm just trying to be clear.
37.
by cmatthias 4y ago
The TCPA requires express written consent to send marketing messages or phone calls to any personal phone number. Legal precedent dictates that online, this usually takes the form of a specific checkbox on the form where you're giving
38.
by cmatthias 4y ago
If you are in the USA, then what you received are unsolicited marketing phone calls under the TCPA, a law which allows you to personally collect up to $1500 per violation of the law or associated regulations, per phone call that you receive
39.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I said it was more relevant than nefarious hackers or government agencies, not relevant in some subjective general sense. So whether or not they care is irrelevant to my point.
40.
by cmatthias 4y ago
Your scenario is oddly specific -- I didn't say anything about a Google search, or about ensuring that the user doesn't log in. In fact, going to www.google.com in an incognito window pops up a little animated box on the right han
41.
by cmatthias 4y ago
What if the attacker is the one who built and shipped the OS to begin with? Everything you say is true, but it doesn't matter as long as user data (history, location, etc) is being shipped off to Google. Or, put another way: your threa
42.
by cmatthias 4y ago
Then you are either uninformed or willfully ignorant of 1) how operating systems and browsers work and 2) your employer's past actions relating to collecting and storing user data.
43.
by cmatthias 4y ago
Would you be at all concerned about the security and privacy of your guest user’s data, given your employer’s propensity for slurping up and storing whatever user data they can get their hands on? What if your guest user was searching for t
44.
by cmatthias 4y ago
It wouldn’t. It could support USB 3 or some lower standard. But the key is that under a redesigned versioning scheme, every new standard is fully backward compatible with the old, with no optional bits tacked on. This makes it easy to under
45.
by cmatthias 4y ago
Again, this sounds like a nightmare and more confusing than the current naming scheme. I agree that in theory the USB working group should just standardize the ports, but if they’re doing that right, there’s no need for 500 different versio
46.
by cmatthias 4y ago
There are still holes in this scheme which would require more fields and/or just leaving data out. Ports/cables can support multiple (but not necessarily all!) voltages for PD. This scheme as written doesn’t capture Thunderbolt co
47.
by cmatthias 4y ago
OK let’s say we do that. For the sake of argument, let’s define USB14 as what we call “Thunderbolt 4” today (basically USB4 plus a few extra things that are optional under the USB4 spec), with 100W of PD. And let’s define USB63 as plain old
48.
by cmatthias 4y ago
The poster didn't suggest suffixes like this. I took their point to be the opposite: let's have short, easy-to-read, meaningful names for each possible combination of port. But regardless, this is what I was getting at when I said
49.
by cmatthias 4y ago
Yeah, if we could totally re-do everything, something like this would be ideal. But the problem is, under the current spec it’s possible, and quite common (at least on the PC side of things) to have a 20gbps USB-C port that doesn’t support
50.
by cmatthias 4y ago
This isn’t specific enough for some situations. Let’s say you have a “USB-C 40G 45W” port. For power, your port could supply either 15V 3A, or 20V 2.25A, or both. If I have a device that wants 45W but only supports 20V, and your port only s
51.
by cmatthias 4y ago
> DYI Do Yourself It?
52.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I just went through trying to install Linux on my 2015 15” retina MacBook Pro (model 11,5 with Radeon dGPU) and it was not usable. Every distro I tried (Ubuntu, Pop OS, Fedora, and NixOS) had severe Bluetooth instability (most times the com
53.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I think we are actually saying the same thing, and my language was imprecise, so I apologize. My point is that in the US, the narrower legal/constitutional concept of free speech is often implied, inadvertently or deliberately, when pe
54.
by cmatthias 4y ago
> surely you must recognize that you are likely in the minority of e-mail users? No, I don't recognize that. Citation needed. > didn't trump's twitter platform get banned from all the common cloud providers? is it that
55.
by cmatthias 4y ago
> No, you can not create your own website. Yes, in the US, you can. Giving me an example of one site that was booted off a small set of providers does not disprove that. I do completely agree with you that having e.g. Apple be the sole g
56.
by cmatthias 4y ago
> i'm sorry, i interpreted your point to broadly be "free speech with limits", which i understand to be at-odds with the constitutional definition. Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the U
57.
by cmatthias 4y ago
> when was the last time you sent (or received) an e-mail outside of the context of work, or to interact with a company? This morning, a few hours ago. > apple and google make the phones! my network provider is also a private company,
58.
by cmatthias 4y ago
> citation needed Uh, the US constitution and a few centuries of case law? > perhaps, but how much pressure do you think they could take, if pressured to take down your content by other private individuals & corporations? The one
59.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I'm sorry if "hate/conspiracy bullshit" was too inflammatory or specific here. I meant it as a stand in for "any content that most would find objectionable." I've edited my post to remove that language. Yo
60.
by cmatthias 4y ago
I disagree that we're close to the end of the slope, but I guess if you're right we'll find out soon enough. I'm not a libertarian by any means but I do have some amount of faith that if what you're describing comes

More ›