> We want to encourage people to produce written output with minimal friction. Barriers to writing--and especially barriers to producing documentation--should be minimized. Writing well is difficult enough!
What about something like AsciiDoc (or reStructuredText)?
> Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered […]
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." — Donald Trump, June 16, 2015
> The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves.
Which has been a popular argument against democracy since at least Plato: just look at the average voter/person and their intelligence, understanding of the world, and their character.
> 60 years after swinging around the moon, we are going to attempt the feat again. I'm having a hard time getting excited...
There was a comedian that had the observation a few years back that we've lost our saw of awe and wonder: he was on a plane when Internet was just being introduced, and it was announced on the flight, but after a little bit it stopped working and they announced 'technical difficulties' and it wouldn't be available.
The guy next to him was like "this is bullshit": how quickly the world owed this guy something that he knew existed only a few minutes before.
As he goes on: often whenever people complain about their flights, it was like a 1940s German cattle car: X happened, then Y happened. And his response is: And then what happened? Did you fly in the air? Did you sit on a chair in the sky? Like a bird, like humans have been imaging since the tail of Icarus (and before)?
Hedonic adaptation is real (which is "fine" as far as it goes, as striving for better isn't a bad thing):
But given you're invoking history, it's easy how it is to forget the woe that humans lived in just a few decades before Apollo 8, and the incredible strides that happened (and that many people on the planet, even now, have yet to fully experience):
>> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP?
> Suddenly, your smart lightbulb is accessible by everyone. Not a great idea.
Why would it be "accessible by everyone"? My last ISP had IPv6 and my Asus (with the vendor firmware) didn't allow it. My printer automatically picked up an IPV6 address via SLACC and it was not "accessible by everyone" (I tried connecting to it externally).
>> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP?
> What would be the advantage in it?
Not having to deal with ICE/TURN/STUN. Being able to develop P2P applications without having to build out that infrastructure (anyone remember Skype's "supernodes"?).
It's about being able to run apps that can operate without have an HQ that needs to be phoned home to for operation, which is currently generally necessary with NAT.
> Anyhow. I'm not confused about NAT vs. firewalling. No one who dislikes IPv6 is confused by this.
"No one"; LOL. I've participated in entire sub-threads on HN with people insisting that NAT = security. I've cited well-regarded network educators/commentators and vendors:
That article is making a narrower claim than you're implying. It argues that NAT is not a security mechanism by design and that some forms of NAT provide no protection, which is true.
It also explicitly acknowledges that NAT has side effects that resemble security mechanisms.
In typical deployments, those side effects mean internal hosts are not directly addressable from the public internet unless a mapping already exists. That reduces externally reachable attack surface.
So, the disagreement here is mostly semantic. NAT is not a security control in the design sense, but it does have security-relevant effects in practice.
I personally do consider NAT as part of a security strategy. It's sometimes nice to have.
Both of those articles are actually wrong. They say "if an unknown packet arrives from the outside interface, it’s dropped" and "While it is true that stateful ingress IPv4 NAT will reject externally initiated TCP traffic" respectively, but this is in fact not true for NAT, which you can see for yourself just by testing it. (It's true for a firewall, but not for NAT.)
The biggest security-relevant effects of NAT are negative. It makes people think they're protected when they aren't, and when used with port forwarding rules it reduces the search space needed to find accessible servers.
I agree it can be a useful tool in your toolbox sometimes, but a security tool it is not.
What about something like AsciiDoc (or reStructuredText)?
* https://docs.asciidoctor.org/asciidoc/latest/asciidoc-vs-mar...
* "Markdown, Asciidoc, or reStructuredText – a tale of docs-as-code": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33468213
Simply things are still simple, but there seem to be more advanced options for those that want/need them.
reply