Just my opinion here, spy is probably fine, coworker is big no no. If I got a spy to bang, after it's done I'll publicly praise her on Twitter to thank her for the good time (assuming it is, otherwise I will have give advice) and tag my wife too so we can actually try the tricks at home but this time with true love. If a female coworker enters a meeting room alone with me, I'll insist that she keep the door behind her open so everyone can supervise what we are doing.
It's kinda pity. Mr. Huang seemed a nicer guy than the other CEOs, less dicky, trying to be useful etc. But then maybe that's why the other CEOs act like they do, a way to filter out the less loyal members from the company board. If Mr. Huang survives this, maybe he should get rid of whoever supported his ousting from the board, wasting money to breed a coup always burdens earning potential.
WireGuard by itself is bare. Currently it don't have a "proper" ("official") way to make custom transport for it. Thus if you have to do it, the task is no different than writing a UDP proxy.
But that UDP proxy is then an independent program, with no awareness on the states of the WireGuard instance, thus the proxy have to run in a very dumb/blind way. That's not ideal.
If you want to write a network proxy, it's the best for the proxy to know as much user intent as possible, so for example it knows which request should be retried, which should be given up as fast as possible if encountered a fault, and which request should just be rerouted to another server, etc.
Why is it best for the proxy to "know as much user intent as possible"? You can get that with WireGuard either way, but it's not at all clear to me that's true. We ran a rather huge deployment of WebSockets-encapsulated WireGuard, and I believe Tailscale has as well, and the fact that WireGuard was oblivious to it caused no problems I'm aware of.
I think the problem Destin (host of the channel) faced, a.k.a. high production costs in the US, and the problem Unitree faces, a.k.a. no motivation to push for further automation are all both soft problems, meaning it can be resolved eventually if someone pushes enough to solve it.
If instead just creating few of the tools, Destin pushed to create $1T worth of it, then maybe the supplychain will automatically build around it.
If China's labor cost risen to the level that makes Unitree robots more appealing, then Unitree will figure out ways to automate their production line more to keep up with the demand.
All and all, it's not a capability problem, it's a "why do it, and why now" problem. Just like, say, sending people to Mars. The tech is already here, but why send people to a planet that (currently) don't even have enough stuff needed to support living? Except of course, Mars will probably stay this way much longer than a country changing course.
Also, just a sidenote: I think Destin misread the market. He wanted to create a "high-quality", "durable" product. Sure, it make sense to do it most of the time, but a brush? You know, that thing gets dirty in an dark and oily way very quickly. With a durable brush that's expensive to replace, then you have will a problem of maintenance, clean it etc. And grill oil is not easy to clean, do you now also have to buy another product just to maintain the brush? How about now I offer you a cheap made in China brush that will disintegrate in your hands after 5 times of use, but then you just throw it away and get a new one, no maintenance required. Of course, throwing away too many trash is bad for the environment, but guess how the other trash gets handled, including, say, toothbrush?
How about, invent a grill that don't need to be brushed? Just a rinse and it's done? Just a Smarter way to think about inventing, you know.
Well, after watching the video, I think Destin designed the product in the most expensive way possible for this application, using the progressive die sheet metal handle, multiple injection molded parts, fastener, and chainmail.
If I were to design it to be manufactured in the states, I would probably go for a simple wooden handle with off the shelf wire mesh instead of chainmail, and the fastening would just be mechanical fit between wrapped wire and handle with no additional fastener, which should massively improve price and manufacturability.
Wasn't the problem that the "off the shelf" parts all came from china? Also the point was to try and manufacture something of reasonable complexity completely in the US.
I think you almost hit something more important there. Desires like mating, respect, status etc can only exists with the entities that needs it, but what if the existence of those entities is fundamentally no longer needed? Why then should "the society" maintain it? It's known that a society less burden advances faster, and it's also known that countries need to move fast to stay competitive.
I believe future is much grimmer for people currently living, because if productivity can increase without the import of human labors, then eventually the humans will simply not be kept alive. Meaning, shrink in human population, and even more intense competition for fewer still competitiable resources etc. Of course you'll are not hanging out, you're too busy doing hard labor the robots still can't yet do.
All of this is easy to see if you understand that human societies are not built to advance and provide, instead they are fundamentally built to fairly distribute resources from ones who's non-productive, to ones are. And most type of societies that is alive and well today is very good at that.
Also, off-topic here: most people confused the word "productivity" with something like "hard work", it's not that. I'll give you the readers some examples: Elon Musk can build and launch rockets that carries actual people to space safely, but you can't (so far) no matter how hard you work, and thus Elon Musk is more productive than you; Jeff Bezos (so far) deliver goods to millions of people or more each year, but you can't no matter how hard you try, and thus Jeff Bezos is more productive than you. That's what "productivity" actually mean, not "I work my ass off everyday so I deserve to get paid more". And that's the real reason why these guys are rich and you're not, not because rich people are evil, but because they found their way to be productive and thus they get rich.
> Elon Musk can build and launch rockets that carries actual people to space safely, but you can't no matter how hard you work, and thus Elon Musk is more productive than you
Elon Musk can't build shit. All he can do is pay people to do it for him while he sits on his ass and takes a cut from all of the worker's knowledge and labor. He just makes sure he gets the credit (https://sciencesensei.com/heres-who-really-invents-the-amazi...). Jeff Bezos doesn't deliver goods to anybody at all. He underpays low wage drivers who actually deliver goods and he makes them piss in water bottles so that he can stuff his pockets with the pennies it would cost if they could take bathroom breaks and have a shred of human dignity. The companies they own aren't run by them either. They pay a bunch of people better skilled and qualified to manage the operations.
The special skill that the people with the most have is exploitation. Most of them were born into money, a few of them lucked into it, but they took that money and they found ways to take as much as possible from the people who actually have the skills and put in the work to make things happen, and they do it while claiming all the credit for labor they didn't spend a minute of their lives actually doing. What you call "productive" is literally just exploitation and self-marketing. Marketing that you fell for hook line and sinker.
> The special skill that the people with the most have is exploitation
If you're non-exploiting, then you should start a company to compete with the people who do. This is how the world actually work, don't just demanding, compete too. And if it worked, it could show that you don't need to be exploitative to remain competitive, it'll be a much greater world if everyone sees that.
> it could show that you don't need to be exploitative to remain competitive
You can't be "competitive" by not fucking over others when that's the entire game being played. You'll never get to be #1 at "who sits on largest pile of money" by paying people an honest wage while your opponents are using slaves. The best you can hope for is that government steps in to change the game, and act as referee in order to keep everyone playing fairly. At that point the winner won't be the person with the most money, it will be the person who does the most good.
The game right now rewards whoever puts out the cheapest garbage at the highest price. Companies who make a good product enshitify it so they can make more money. They move production into countries that use slaves to build products that poison consumers with heavy metals and are designed to fail so they have to be replaced. They remotely disable features you paid for and turn them into subscriptions. They buy up or bankrupt competition so that consumers have less choice and they become increasingly unavoidable. They drive down wages and costs at every opportunity and their wealth grows at unprecedented rates.
The game we should be playing would reward the person whose company produces the best products at the lowest prices. It should reward the workers who do the most work. The craftsmen who create works of art. The companies who rise to the top should be the ones who have earned the most trust and loyalty from consumers. You should never hear another person say "I feel horrible about buying anything from that company, but I don't know what else do to!" There should be no products made using slaves. There should be no companies hiding the fact that their products are poisoning consumers. There should be no employee working 40 hours a week who still needs welfare to meet their basic needs, and no one being forced to piss in bottles. No need for suicide nets.
We don't need robber barons and parasites to have nice things, and what we're still allowed to own will only get worse until we rid ourselves of them, but until they are finally gone they will do everything in their power to make certain that no one who is wiling to do it without exploitation can threaten their ability to take more and more and more from everyone else.
> The game right now rewards whoever puts out the cheapest garbage at the highest price.
Why? Don't people know that they should buy better? Spend their "hard earn money" on who truly worthy the support? Has the government forced people to spend money on shit products or die? Is there no good product anymore to spend money on?
> You'll never get to be #1 at "who sits on largest pile of money" by paying people an honest wage while your opponents are using slaves.
Why? Don't people don't know they should be working for who treats others fairly and kindly? Don't they know they can just quit when the working condition has gone too bad? Can't they just start their own company if they're unsatisfied with the one currently abusing them?
I thought people are wise and powerful etc, why instead of letting "robber barons and parasites to have nice things", people just stand up and "make things right"? What are they waiting for? What are they looking for?
> There should be no employee working 40 hours a week who still needs welfare to meet their basic needs
Few layers here:
1. Why don't quit? Why can't quit? Why *choose* not quiting, willfully? People are not locked to their posts, they can leave whenever they want.
2. Why working hours must be tethered with certain welfare outcome? Is the productivity guaranteed? What if the job just can't produce enough? Should a company hire people just to take a guaranteed lost? Or should the job be cut?
Demanding, saying "could", "should", "be fair" is easy and empty, but getting things to really work is hard.
You know, based on some people in China has learned building VPN/proxies, the best and cheap way to communicate under surveillance/censorship is to hide it in plain sight. In fact, that's how most these proxy software works.
So no, you don't need sci-fi technology. If you really want to communicate, context-coherent code words though bugged phone line should be enough, at least enough to arrange a meet up.
Also a interesting thought: maybe one day when human invented a device that could listen to quantum communications, we turn it on and ended up detecting a sea of encrypted conversations from another space-time perhaps even an universe just aligned with ours, and the device also experiences unexplained packet loss. That's what I call a plot of a sci-fi story :)
If you don't know, China runs censorship program against radio signals beginning from the cold war time and it's not officially stopped yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming_in_China. Of course it's not blocking ionosphere level, but not that different than chaffing the air (at the receiver side).
yeah... I don't hope for a doomsday scenario but I do think it would be neat to use these HAM-based internet tech or whatever. Funny how tech becomes obsolete too like same thing but faster/slower. I still mess around with almost 20 year old computers for fun.
I kinda wonder what if Microsoft (or any major software company) would give their engineers a few decades of time just to refactor their existing systems, opposite of piling on new features. Will it result a much cleaner code, better architect, and stable product?
The last Windows I daily use was Windows 7 Home (same era with Windows Server 2008). The newer ones don't really improved much featurely from my (user) point of view, and from what I've heard, it's getting more sloppyer every newer version.
> what if Microsoft would give their engineers a few decades of time just to refactor their existing systems
They wouldn't, even if they didn't care about shipping new features. The technical complexity inside Windows/Office/old core MS offerings arises only in small part from ordinary tech debt--that is, things fixable without changing observable behavior. The lion's share of that complexity is because of Microsoft's priority to avoid breaking compatibility (backwards, or with hardware/software combos that work) at all costs.
That means that a refactor-only decade would achieve little unless that compatibility priority were changed.
The Windows user-mode innards have been significantly refactored. Many of the core system DLLs that apps link to are just redirects to the actual implementation now. Much of the jank seems to be in the UI.
It's just as likely it would end up as an overengineered mess. And that's without considering backwards compatibility constraints, which are one of the biggest maintenance burdens.
Firefox is a browser so it make sense to implement their TLS like that.
But we're talking about a lib of a programming language here, things happened in there effects your own reputation when you ship something built on top of it.
So the real question is, has others such as OpenSSL done the same? If yes, then yeah it's normal, but if no then I don't trust people from Google.
But more importantly, say I self-hosted this service, then, I have to answering emails for the rest of my life telling a program I'm still alive. It's kinda high maintenance all on it's own.
That is assuming this service continuous to run without upkeep, at very least keeping it powered, and connected to the Internet. I'm not really sure what comes first, the end of my life or I got bored of doing it.
I know it sounded inapplicable for a lot of people especially who do remote works, but still if you're thinking about letting a machine run your death plan, maybe it's also the time to start make people connections, such as with lawyers, partners etc, people you can trust and have the capability of handling issues.
Also, if you do remote work, maybe setup an account inheritance plan if the platform supports it, assuming the account is dedicated for working for the effected team of course.
Also also, just an idea, what if you make the check passive? Instead of having to answer emails, some automated procedure will send keepalives to tell the program to not trigger? That will massively lower the cost of using it.
The Switch works by pressing a button on a page. The Switch emails the link, so pressing the button confirms everything is okay! An automatic keep alive would keep pinging if you're dead. I agree it's a narrow market. I've put my 2IC in place and I'm meeting with my lawyer soon to add her. This is about having external relationships for sure and I very much appreciate that comment. The cost to me is a small Linode (nanode) and it hooks into SMTP2go which I already pay for ;)
> An automatic keep alive would keep pinging if you're dead
Look it this way: an automated request, a email click, it's all just signal collection. If something keeps making an automatic requests beyond it's intended need, then it's just bad signal collection.
I'm pretty sure there are better ways, especially the intended sample rate is 1/week which fairly high fault-tolerant for the use case. For example, you can send keepalives only when user's device is unlocked and in use, etc.
But of course that require client-side development, not sure if you're willing to get your hand dirty on that.
Not at this stage. Part of my campaign is to inspire others to create a solution. It came up in my business and this is how I'm dealing with it. I've always been web based. There's actually an app you can download for your phone at deadmanswitch.com
If people create their own switches in different flavours I consider this thread to be successful.
If you feel the need to quote that, just remember that it was from something written back in 2012. That was a time so beautiful, even the light reflected from a raw sewerage tank could create a full spectrum rainbow with twinkling stars if you capture and bring it to today's world.
Now days, the world has grown much bigger, and people are accustomed to unfamiliarity (the world of strangers), with no need to understand and love, with no need to bring people together. So the check is much straight forward and quick: if someone thinks stupid, acts stupid, then maybe they are stupid. Brutal and useful, high utilitarian efficiency.
Just my opinion here, spy is probably fine, coworker is big no no. If I got a spy to bang, after it's done I'll publicly praise her on Twitter to thank her for the good time (assuming it is, otherwise I will have give advice) and tag my wife too so we can actually try the tricks at home but this time with true love. If a female coworker enters a meeting room alone with me, I'll insist that she keep the door behind her open so everyone can supervise what we are doing.
It's kinda pity. Mr. Huang seemed a nicer guy than the other CEOs, less dicky, trying to be useful etc. But then maybe that's why the other CEOs act like they do, a way to filter out the less loyal members from the company board. If Mr. Huang survives this, maybe he should get rid of whoever supported his ousting from the board, wasting money to breed a coup always burdens earning potential.
reply