The only change I've seen in this regard is a dramatic reduction in people's willingness to tolerate these people. They've always been here and always been like this, but we as a society used to just let them have their way to make them go away.
So I see articles like this as being nothing but good news.
I have used this software for... A decade? And never knew it had a search feature
The ability to selectively respond to DNS requests is integral to the function of DNS. The only real issue here is that there isn't a standard response code indicating the reason for not returning the record like there is in http
Peering isn't Sender Pays, Peering is "I'll carry your traffic if you'll carry mine", with the understanding that when there's an imbalance in one direction or another that an exchange of some sort is had, be it dollars, bandwidth limits, or similar. In this case, where C interconnects with A which interconnects with B, if C's traffic is so substantial that it's saturating the crosslink between A and B, A would need to evaluate whether their peering agreement with C means that C needs to be paying for the network upgrade, or if there's enough traffic moving from A's network into C's to offset that, and that the interconnect between A and B is the root issue. In your example, rather than paying more into ISPs and, essentially, indirectly funding US network backbone infrastructure upgrades across the board, they solved their problem with cache servers that they handed out like candy to avoid their costs to C sky rocketing. G solved this problem by buying a bunch of dark fiber which was laid on spec by contractors and started peering directly with the Tier 1 providers, dramatically reducing their cost delta.
Where Korea's system differs is that in traditional Tier 1 peering, as I understand it, T's ISP (call them P) should be using some of the money they get from T to pay Q and R for the excess traffic of their customer, but instead Q and R were, per the government, allowed to also charge T for delivery of their packets, resulting in T having to pay both on the up and downlink side, charging them twice for the same bit. T, rather than attempt what G did, told Korea to pound sand and exited the market.
The correct answer in that scenario is C should be paying for it, as in the stated scenario C's traffic would be exceeding the peering arrangement with B and/or A, but there were/are a number of reasons that breaks down in the real world.
Not to any meaningful degree. You're better off at Vintage Stock tbh
Yeah, identity is a real problem, but someone posted a proposal to solve for that that looks perfect for this sort of thing. Wish I remembered what it was called, but basically each account could attest for the others via export of encryption keys/signatures so while you has multiple 'accounts' there was only one identity which was pointed to in the signature blob.
The tricky part would be getting everyone (matrix, lemmy/kbin/mbin, pixel fed, and masto) to conform to a single identity standard. If one existed, I could see them implementing it, but we're not there yet.
I can sort of see why a chat client wouldn't have a use for activitypub/federation, with the possible exception of identity sharing once that starts to take off.
This is your ISP's pricing list:
https://www.radiolinkinternet.com/Plans.html
$55
15mbps down / 5mbps up
$65
22mbps down / 7mbps up
$85
30mbps down / 10mbps up
Call
-other speeds up to 1000mbps Wireless are available-
They're a rural fixed wireless provider. I don't understand why they would try to serve the middle of the town.
I would personally consider getting a refund, but the hotels there aren't that much better for speeds. The city /does/ have good internet access available, i don't understand why nobody purchases it :(
Hey, I resemble that remark!
There was one just a few weeks ago with Helldivers 2 and requiring PSN accounts on pc even if you don't live in a country with PSN