eqvinox

19 ms·

361.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
The only data that cannot be stolen or leaked is data that doesn't exist. Hard lesson for both users and companies. Germans (because of course) have a word for this: "Datensparsamkeit". Being frugal with your data.
362.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
USB4/TB4 devices doing (only) PCIe tunneling will absolutely not work on a USB3.2 port, or even on an USB4 port without PCIe support (which you can find on some very recent smartphones I believe. It's spec compliant, PCIe is optio
363.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. It's a shitshow, and I wish it'd backfire, but it won't. Maybe the EU will come up with some (better) "true labelling" laws, if not I see no chance for this to get better. (Wh
364.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
You're correct but it's irrelevant. My point was that these requirements are in the standard and if you want to put the USB logo on a power brick you need to meet them. And the consumer is intended to be able to rely on them - whi
365.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47908287 Yes, that signal processing is massively more expensive. A 10Gbase-T PHY is a sophisticated DSP. Not sure if the power needs are exponential, given we only have a few data p
366.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
DAC cables are cheating because due to the extremely short range limits (5m, 7m if you're very lucky) they can just put the 10Gbase-R/SFI signal straight on a pair of Copper at 10.3125 Gbaud. 10Gbase-T, to try to get to 100m, thro
367.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
> Moreover, "5 Gb/s" is a marketing lie. It's not a lie, the b just stands for baud not bit ;-)
368.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
ACK. From some cursory experimentation, my laptop can roughly saturate 1G via USB, but on 2.5G things get wonky above roughly 1.9G unidirectional or 2.9G bidirectional. > Thunderbolt is PCIe Nit: Thunderbolt isn't PCIe, it tunnels
369.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
> Guess, I'm back to CAT6 :-) If you learned what you need for 10GbT you can learn what you need for 10GbLR. Which is: LC connector, PC or UPC, duplex, OS1 or OS2, and SFP+ modules saying "LR". Any of the following is wro
370.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
voltage-min-design: 11.58 V This has nothing to do with USB-C, this is the minimum design voltage of your lithium ion battery pack. In this case, you have a 4-cell pack, and if the cells drop below 2.895V that means they're ph
371.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
8159 != 8139 > /* * RealTek 8129/8139 PCI NIC driver * * Supports several extremely cheap PCI 10/100 adapters based on […] Also, please, for the love of whatever entity, at least remove the *s on that paste. This is just
372.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Coincidentally, the USB-C spec is written such that wattage implies a minimum set of supported voltages: * ≤15W charger: must have 5V * ≤27W charger: must have 5V & 9V * ≤45W charger: must have 5V & 9V & 15V * (OT but worth noti
373.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
> Is that really true? It's not, cf. sibling posts. The GP probably learned networking in the 80ies~90ies when it was true, but those times are long gone. (unless you're talking wifi.)
374.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
It's inherently worse than anything fibre, or even DAC cables (which are kinda cheating.) It needs a shitton of analog "magic" to work with the bandwidth limitations of copper cabling.
375.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Or is speaking in future terms. 40Gbase-T will never exist, sure. 25Gbase-T very likely will.
376.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Too bad this is 10Gbase-T, that energy-wasting hot-running garbage needs to die sooner rather than later. Good thing the ranges for 25Gbase-T are short enough to make it impractical for home use. (Fibre is nowhere near as "sensitive&q
377.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Theoretically yes, practically that hasn't been built yet. I've only seen it for 2.5Gbase-T, and only for 802.3bt Type 3 (51W). If anyone's aware of something better, I'd be interested too :) (Then again I wouldn't
378.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Sure, but it doesn't really change motivations around that. Shady politicians might do that anyway, bet or no bet. The problem with sabotaging yourself is that it challenges the assumption that everyone is playing to win. If anything,
379.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
As long as they bet on themselves winning, it seems kinda fine? They're not really manipulating things, just profiting from their own work... Betting on themselves losing would be a problem, since then they could manipulate the result
380.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
btw. There should be a word like dogfooding but for AI training. Dogtraining? Dogwalking? Dogfeeding?
381.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Tidal kinda isn't solar since it's from rotation's and orbits' energies though.
382.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
I bet this doesn't include higher management. Wonder why.
383.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Hmm, no idea if we have different toothpicks around here... What also works (and funnily enough is also called a "toothpick") is the flat plastic thing some "swiss" pocket knives/tools (Victorinox brand) have.
384.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Toothpicks work great for this if you narrow them a bit with a knife. As a woodworker I'm surprised you didn't have that idea :D (Like, c'mon, toothpicks aren't immutable objects that fall out of question just because th
385.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Ah, right, that one with all the ALGs. Kinda NAT64's ancestor, though I have no idea of the evolution/development process. I don't believe this ever worked at scale, even if it is pretty much NAT64. Particularly the part wh
386.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
/52 and /60 are quite common as well, predictably what with falling on a "letter boundary" and all
387.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
What would that "thing" be?
388.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Dual-stack was the only coexistence option for a long time, until NAT64 came around. There were a whole bunch of attempts at compatibility, e.g. with "::1.1.1.1" and "::ffff:1.1.1.1" as IPv6 addresses, they just didn&
389.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Nah, you didn't fix anything, you just moved the problem around. (Worst case, you moved the problem to your finance department, for buying IPv4 address space. But even if you didn't do that, at some point sooner or later you&#x27
390.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
You're confusing ULAs (Unique Local Addresses) with LLAs (Link-Local Addresses). (ULAs don't need the interface specified.) ULA: fc..:… and fd..:… LLA: fe80:… [ed.: By the way, sin6_scope_id is where the interface identifier is st

More ›