Why is pinging an anycast address an issue? Most people, myself included, ping addresses like 1.1.1.1 to check for internet connectivity. It's a perfectly valid check, you don't need a fine grained test all the time. If it fails, then I go looking in detail. Most of the time it will pass.
Pinging a domain name could fail for a variety of other reasons, particularly if it's not a reliable site. Cloudflare's business is being reliable; few sites would be a better choice.
The problem is pinging 1.1.1.1 can end up hitting a really really close-by server. You could be having ISP issues and 1.1.1.1 could end up being closer to you than the issue is, so you get okay ping results but still unable to access resources on the other side of the issue
You're thinking far too hard. If I can ping 1.1.1.1, it means traffic is flowing from inside my network, to outside my network. I'm not going to diagnose my ISP's issues, that's their job, I just need to know that it's not my problem.
You can have routing issues that alow some IP addresses to work and others not, anycast or not. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive connectivity report, just a sanity check that the intertubes are connected at all.
Of course. Ping 1.1.1.1 is not a test that everything is working great. DNS could be dead. IPv6 could be black holed.
But it’s a good “is traffic making it past my router with some semblance of connectivity” sanity check, and easier than finding the provider-side next hop address.
The corollary is that when it fails, you've no idea what failed, or how it failed, or if the "fail" is even valid or relevant, because you're abusing a service that isn't designed for you and isn't fit for use. So if it succeeds, you really don't know, because perhaps your train's WiFi router is responding with a spoofed IPv4 address while it goes through the Chunnel. And if it fails, you really don't know, because you DGAF about learning formal troubleshooting methods and couldn't be arsed to find out your upstream router's address in order to simply isolate your PING to a singular link, rather than relying on complex routing rules, especially those introduced by "anycast". And perhaps you can manually dig in when your manual checks fail, but your AI agent or automated script DGAF about your nuanced knowledge that 1.1.1.1 isn't your upstream router; in fact it's not yours at all and has nothing to do with your network topology. But at least it looks elegant.
How is this any different than decoding binary? If you can read a chart of codes involving either dot or dash surely you can also read a chart of codes with either 0 or 1.
It's not so much that it's different, it's just that Morse is the canonical dot-dash/beep-boop communication format in the UK, and binary is a niche distant second known only in the abstract as "it's all ones and zeros" to most non-tech people. So while an engineer would expect a beep-boop to be binary, a police station caretaker would expect it to be Morse, and I'd expect the people building that system to build it for the caretaker.
The entire capacity of RAM production is basically booked out, for at least the next year. All fabs have sold their allocations already, and it takes years to build a new one. As a result, no it will likely not ease up if demand continues like this, again for at least a year.
They sold their allocations to people who don't have a clear path to profitability, and were paid with massive amounts of money that don't exist in reality.
You know how fractional reserve banking can create money out of thin air? In theory, the stock market can be used in the same way. Which is what the AI providers have been doing.
I agree to pay you within 90 days of receiving the product, which you'll send me in 6 months. You get to count this promise as income i've paid you right now. 9 months later I might or might not have the money to pay it for real.
The principle works for stable regular businesses where invoices do get paid, not for bubbles.
I'd argue the opposite: It works even better for bubbles.
Stable, regular businesses generally don't take on massive amounts of debt as a matter of accomplishing their value proposition. Maybe they take on the debt as a part of an expansion into a new geographic market or on developing a new product, but they typically have cash reserves to help fund those things. Accordingly the debts are relatively small and there's at least some collateral to secure them.
Any kind of bubble, on the other hand, is, by definition, financially massive. People taking on debts take on huge debts with the hopes of huge rewards. The problem is, the debts are so huge that neither the debtor nor creditor can allow them to go unpaid.
When you reach the scale of debt that you see for AI - literally trillions of dollars - the creditor isn't just a bank or a few investors, they're entire segments of the economy. The debtors can use that as leverage to get what they want. The Great Recession is a prime example of this. You had the US government print out or borrow $700 billion-ish dollars to absolve financial institutions of the toxic mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets. Now, could they have simply declared bankruptcy and had the assets on their balance sheets claimed by other parties? Maybe, but that would have taken too long for most people's comfort and, moreover, would have been embarrassing for the country's monied elite. There had to be a bailout to keep a bunch of things solvent in the near-term, and they got one.
You could see this here: AI companies have everyone on the hook for their bets, and if it doesn't work, you can't simply write off the value of shares of everyone who has backed the bet.
They're too big to fail. If you owe the bank $1 million, you have a problem. If you owe the economy $1 trillion, the economy has a problem.
new "altaccount2026" only posting twice, today, about this. we are very much looking forward to sharing our story, very very soon.
if you "altaccount2026 " really want a twitter archive of my photos of my kids, puppets, links to my articles, posts, and more, it may be available on some archiver.
we are very much looking forward to sharing our story.
This is just another instance of Adafruit's "drama-journalism" functioning as advertising. Adafruit turns its director/ex-director (current status unknown) Phillip Torrone's compulsive personal feuds into principled-sounding "advocacy" and harvests the resulting outrage as free marketing. Adafruit publicising a dispute while not publishing the underlying letter/breach is the smoking gun for this.
People are afraid to speak out on this because engaging @ptorrone or critiquing Adafruit carries significant risks.
There is a pattern of aggressive public confrontation before private resolution along with disproportionate responses & difficulty disengaging with critics.
Even mild criticism or jokes has resulted in abusive messages from PT, with Phil Torrone contacting their managers, employers, ex-employers (as called out by sparkfun) and even a critic’s partner’s workplace.
PT will continue the escalation even after being blocked/suspended on platforms resulting in @ptorrone being temporarily banned from Bluesky last year. Some people were even harassed via their Etsy stores.
My take is I've never heard of Flux but I've repeatedly heard of Adafruit getting into drama, so the bayesian in me is definitely not prepared to jump on whoever Flux is. Better to wait for the facts, than give Adafruit the benifit of the doubt.
I have, and the article does not in any way address my question. You also seem to be a brand new user, so in case you're not aware, HN guidelines say to refrain from mentioning whether or not someone has read the link.
As a long time reader I keep wondering how it is more conductive to the discourse to comment without reading than to point that the answers might be in the article someone ignored.
Just reply with a quote from the article. They will understand they did not read carefully, and you can avoid the low-value 'read the article' snark (that might be false since often it is not actually in the article when somebody does that).
My question wasn't "how to handle that better". I hope it's okay to point it out :)
I would also argue it's not "often" the case someone asking the obvious question seemingly answered in the article had actually read it. It happens, surely, but it's not a rule of thumb.
That's too meta for a thread here anyways, I think.
It's an in-actionable "question" / comment. The rule does not claim one thing is better than the other. One is easily enforceable, the other is indemonstrable. If the point of this exchange is to better understand and use HN, the reason is because it is not hard to be constructive instead of throwing out non sequiturs.
And I didn't say it's '"often" the case someone asking the obvious question seemingly answered in the article had actually read it'. I said the person pointing it out while refusing to provide receipts or cordially engage is often wrong about what they think is obviously in the article. It's worthless noise regardless.
I'd rather read "it's in the article you didn't read" than pretty much anything else.
The ideal case of course is that there are only legit questions and discussion from people who actually read what they are talking about. If they miss something that's fine as long as it's the honest exception. But this is not a thing that exists or can exist, so it doesn't count. It's not actually available to be a "What I'd like the most."
The next-most ideal case is when someone talks about something they didn't read, that no one else responds at all. The noise is the minimum possible noise from the original source and it just gets ignored. This aslo is not a real thing, and so not up for consideration.
What's left is some flavore of "noise". This is not avoidable. it will exist and the only choices are what form and flavor it takes.
I think it is most conductive for everyone, the poster, the bystanders, everyone, including people who don't like "noise", is the obvious and natural response. That it's the obvious and natural response for a reason.
Low value and snark may be true but it's irrelevant. It's still the best most productive reaction. (Within reason, 500 of the same response to one comment isn't very interesting reading, but multiple of the same agreeing response does serve a purpose which serves us all.)
That's what I mean by "I'd rather read that than almost anything else."
There are are no better options that actually exist.
As for the hall monitor aspect, telling people they shouldn't say the obvious most applicable thing is also hall monitor.
All in all, I just find the argument sorta valid but weak.
I remember using Waterfox when it was new. I moved away from it when Firefox started pushing 64 bit builds natively, and I've stuck with it since then. Recently though it does seem as if they might be going down a dark path, so perhaps I'll consider switching again. I remember Waterfox was hard forked after Quantum became a thing, in order to keep support with XPI - is that still the case?
The hard fork was "Waterfox Classic", which just became unsustainable to maintain.
Rather than support for XPI (which is just the packaging for Firefox webextensions), the current version of Waterfox does still support bootstrapped extensions - in theory anyone can still write one, with access to all the privileged JavaScript APIs typically not accessible to MV2/MV3 webextensions.
It's not widely used though, there are two repos I'm aware of that take advantage of this:
Yeah but, the article was specifically saying that you don't need to put in country because you can look it up by ZIP. That's obviously wrong, but apparently not to the author of the website.
reply