I've seen claims that the wifi 6E spec mandated that 6ghz networks required WPA3, so you would need to have a separate WPA2 ssid for legacy devices which therefore couldn't include 6ghz. A lot of access points now support a single SSID with all 3 bands using both WPA2 and WPA3, but I don't know if that is due to a change in the spec or if access points are violating the spec by offering that.
Can’t one SSID support different WPA versions across APs? I’m pretty sure all my devices just shrugged and connected when I downgraded my (single AP) SSID from WPA3/2 to 2 only and back up to 3/2.
Which is a bit sad, but also seems like it would allow this use case perfectly (assuming this was done on purpose and not just an oversight).
> Can’t one SSID support different WPA versions across APs?
I think so, yes. My OG Nintendo Switch connects to the PSK SSID on my two OpenWRT Ones that's using what OpenWRT calls 'sae-mixed' encryption mode. My PCs (using ath9k and rtw88_8822be drivers) and my Pixel 5a connect just fine to my EAP SSID that's using the 'wpa3-mixed' encryption mode.
wpa_supplicant says that the PSK SSID has "SAE" in two out of three of its supported operating modes, and the EAP one has "EAP-SHA256-CCMP-preauth" in one of the two. [0] I assume that means that they support WPA3 operation, but I don't know for certain. I'm somewhat ignorant about WPA3, and am profoundly ignorant about WPA3-EAP.
[0] I'm assuming that the "/"-separated list that comes after the "WPA2-" bit in wpa_supplicant's scan results is a list of what I'm calling supported operating modes.
> iPhones, iPads and MacBooks would not switch to another AP
About a decode ago when debugging networking issues in an office, we had the observation that Apple hardware holds onto access points for dear life. Everything else would roam fine, but Apple would stay connected to distant access points with awful signal as if Steve Jobs' life depended on it.
That behavior has changed a lot in the past decade. Apple actually documents their roaming thresholds.
The signal has to drop below -70dbm for ios and -75 dbm for macos for the devices to consider roaming. Additionally, the difference between the two AP has to be 8db for ios and 12 db for macos.
IMHO, these are good defaults. Apple devices are optimizing for stability over the “best” possible signal.
What you might consider awful signal difference between the two APs might not be. (e.g. a mac device at -75dbm need to find another AP with -63dbm or better.)
Wouldn't excluding apartments therefore exclude Ken Griffin's 238 million dollar penthouse? That seems like exactly the kind of 2nd home that this should be targeting.
Yeah I hear you but I want to incentivize dense housing like that. If you live in Texas or Florida, it’s easy to see how second homes can entirely overtake acres and acres of land.
I don't think anyone would object to a rich person casting a single vote and maybe putting a bumper sticker on their car or a sign in their yard. The issue people take with the rich and politics is the outsized influence they wield in elections. The whole "one person one vote" thing falls apart when the rich can throw millions at advertisements and millions at the "charities" run by the politicians they bought.
The issue isn't that people are trying to change people's minds. There are two issues here:
First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds. This isn't sitting down at a bar and having a chat with hank to try to convince him to vote on prop 99. It is the wealthy putting their opinions on your phone, television, and billboards, reminding you of it multiple times per day. If politics is truly a contest of ideas, then the playing field needs to be level so that the ideas can be evaluated fairly, rather than it simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests.
Second, the wealthy don't have to change people's minds. They can purchase politicians by "donating" to them, going to million-dollar-per-plate dinners hosted by them, directly giving them money by staying in their hotels, etc. You don't have to convince a politician that they should vote on prop 99, you just need to pay them however much they want for their vote.
If the wealthy had exactly as much power in politics as a fireman or nurse, then I'd be all for their participation.
> First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds
If that was true everyone would love billionaires. I'm fascinated by the cluelessness of this assertion!
The actual research on campaign finance says that once you've managed to inform the voters about what you stand for and who you are, further spending does very little.
> simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests
This is the most anti democratic statement I've seen in a while!
If you think voters are such easily brainwashed fools, you can hardly be pro democracy!
Money are not speech. Yes, I know supreme court is openly pro corruption and lawlessness when to comes to their guys. That does not mean I have to buy that sophistry too.
Because as soon as you sign that longer lease, the landlord will only ever do the absolute minimum repairs because you're stuck in that lease. We have been reporting our leaking roof for years...
> the total settlement costs were about 3% of the value of the home
> That's $12,777.92 to get the loan.
This is something I don't quite understand when people talk about homes: they just bought a $425,930 home. If they're getting a 30-year mortgage with a 20% down payment they will pay a total of $902k at current mortgage rates. The closing costs are such a tiny fraction of what you're spending. You wouldn't go into a store and refuse to buy a $40 item when you realize you need to pay $3 in sales tax, why would you be bothered by having to pay 3% of the home's value or 1.4% of what you will end up paying in the end?
Same thing with property taxes: my home-owning friends complain about property taxes like they're some huge imposition. OP is paying $515/month in property taxes. My rent has gone up by more than that in the past 3 years that I've been in my current apartment.
That being said, I appreciate this post for the breakdown of all the expenses. I'm considering becoming part of the land-owning elite, so this is useful.
In California, property tax can only go up 2% every year based on the original purchase price (prop 13). For my neighbor who bought their house in the 60s, this must be peanuts.
Wow, if that's actually the intent then that's _deeply_ disrespectful to the tens of thousands of original Americans who died in our revolutionary war.
If they made it interactive, it would be nice to be able to toggle various layers. For example, I was watching it thinking "It's odd that nestorianism is drifting away from the rest" until I realized that empty void in the middle was Islam. It'd be nice if they also had other religions like Islam mapped, and let us toggle which ones we want to see so it doesn't become too noisy.
If it's been a while you lose the active antibodies, but your immune system still knows whats up and can generate them when exposed. If you're lucky they do it fast enough that the virus doesn't get time to gain a foothold and you never experience a symptom. More likely though you get sick, but your body has a head start fighting off the infection so you don't get as sick. That's why the vaccines help people from severe illness even after a few months.
The bad news is that there are strains out there now that are different enough that even our trained immune systems won't recognize them. That's why it's good to get a booster when updated vaccines become available.
You may not have complete immunity beyond 10 years though, so the recommendation is that you get a booster every 10 years.
But I don't see your point? Are you arguing that the COVID vaccine grants immunity for much longer than advertised? That seems unlikely given the mutation rate of coronaviruses.
People have been getting flu shots yearly for decades at this point. There's this weird delusion or socially-induced amnesia that comes with COVID.
I got COVID maybe a year ago, and I stayed home from work for a week. One of my friends couldn't believe it. He said "wow you're really gonna stay home for an entire week just because you have COVID?"
Uh... yes? Isn't that how we have always done things? If you're sick, you don't go to work because you'll get others sick. I recall being a kid and getting strep and flu many times and yup - the school nurse would send me home.
But something about the political environment around COVID has caused people to refuse to believe things that they know to be true. It's fascinating.
Yeah if I’m sick, I’m gonna stay home if I can help it. Doesn’t matter what is is or how innocuous I think it may be, what gives me the right to spread it around and multiply the misery?
With human drivers: traffic light turns green. The first car starts driving. The 2nd car waits 2 seconds and then starts driving. The third car waits another 2 seconds (4 seconds total) and then starts driving. The fourth car waits another 2 seconds (6 seconds total) and then starts driving. etc.
With computers driving: traffic light turns green. All cars simultaneously start driving. It'd be like a train but without the efficiency.
Similarly, with human drivers: some jackasses drive into the box and the light turns red. Now perpendicular traffic is either fully blocked or must proceeed slower to maneuver around the jackasses. With computer drivers, they shouldn't intentionally break the law and they should have plenty of sensors to figure out that they cannot make it through the box.
Safety margins still will require some level of delay between cars that aren't mechanically linked. Even with perfect reaction times, the physics of driving (maximum acceleration rates, possible loss of traction) dictate this, it's a non-trivial control theory problem. Besides, it doesn't seem to be a goal of Waymo; I've seen lines of their vehicles before and they all behave the same way as in mixed traffic.
As a sorta informed outsider, conceptually this makes intuitive sense. But in practice, how does this work? It seems a lot of the intuition breaks down if we don't assume it's network (aka 1 vendor). Fundamentally it's a bunch of external actors where we cannot verify trust and in order to solve for the needs of the individual, suboptimal choices must be made. To put it another way, even if computers can drive cars, what _else_ needs to be in place for this vision?
reply