Yeah. Nowadays I use pi-hole which is dnsmasq underneath and use it with unbound.
Works great. Minimal fuss, efficient setup, little maintenance, I don't have to understand the guts. Everything on my local network is addressable.
Ad blocking at the router is also something you don't want live without once you've gone there but pi-hole is a great solution even if you don't want that.
I use Pihole as well (even tried to synchronize two for HA but I gave up). It is fantastic.
What worries me with dnsmasq is that it is a personal project maintained on a personal git (by a great person!). Sure, one can fork and whatnot but without several people participating it can fade out pretty quickly.
Yeah, fair point. And I don't think I've seen a router for sale that wasn't using dnsmasq as a dhcp server for 20 odd years. Must be some, I guess, but haven't encountered them.
I don't know about unbound's blocklists and stats or indeed much about unbound at all.
This: https://docs.pi-hole.net/guides/dns/unbound/ was stupidly simple, pi-hole has a gui that I was already used to and it all works great. So I think about and study other things that need fixing/improving in my life instead.
To flip it, why would I use unbound without pi-hole? What's the win I haven't seen (or even looked at or considered?)
> To flip it, why would I use unbound without pi-hole? What's the win I haven't seen (or even looked at or considered?)
In my experience, the fewer moving parts the better.
I run Unbound on my OPNsense router, and it uses the same blocklists as Pi-hole and the stats page (blocked domains, DNS requests, etc) are the same afaict.
But you still need something to do your dhcp, so maybe not fewer moving parts? Dunno.
I did pi-hole first, then much later decided to use unbound for dns because it looked super easy to add it. It was. Haven't thought about it much since. I hope your experience was as good or better.
Well even if you are sure about your intuition in the knowledge that this confidence by humans has led to huge problems and tragedies in the past, you still want to have a good estimate of the effect size.
How much resource to allocate to this treatment vs other treatments having a positive effect.
Somewhere there ends up being a trade off that I will caricature as "Do we want another hospital OR another park?"
(All the above is idealised, the biggest win that moves the efficient frontier outwards is effectively fighting corruption and being vigilant defending the gains made. This seems to be universal across countries and cultures).
There is a difference between what you say to and about volunteers working for free on their hobby and what you say about the work of a company famously known as "The Death Star"
You want to work with people and the group says "yay and this is how we will work together" you do that or go away. This is entirely separate to stating a universal truth such as "Microsoft product blows because they do not care", "Oracle sucks" or famously "You can't anthropomorphise Larry Ellison"
Did Linus ever blow-torch community volunteers or did he get the pip purely with big corp submitting paid trash for their own purposes? He seems to cop a fair bit himself from people saying thou shalt not...
The standards differ. Microsoft is going to be ok guys.
All companies are 'a group of people'. But that's not how you treat them. You should treat the individual employees of microsoft as the people they are. You should treat microsoft as a whole as the evil entity it is (TBF they're not worse than apple or google or etc...)
You should also consider the point of view of anyone working on github and being paid by microsoft but who actually does care. Note that they are not named and shamed or anything like that.
Do you think there is a chance these hypothetical engineers who care actually want this kind of thing said publicly? And said as poetically invictive laden as possible? The rationale being that they might use such sentiment to get management to see the danger and /start/ caring about product quality?
I've never worked for microsoft. In my experience when product goes into quality decline, rubbish management is >90% of the reason. How futile is fighting that? How futile is fighting it for github? Does github matter in general? My own use is so limited it doesn't directly matter to me. Indirectly it might well do.
I have no connection to Microsoft but I think this take is terrible.
Part of maturing and growing up, for me, was realizing that there are really very few people who truly deserve scorn and disrespect[1]. Those I disagree with politically, mostly think they’re doing the right thing and they think that if people only understood, they’d change their tune (and that’s basically what I think of them). Those “big companies” like Microsoft, Atlassian, etc, their incentives line up - and literally must line up - in a fashion where they make software that frustrates many users constantly. It really isn’t malice or incompetence - no one, from the intern that wrote some snippet of JS on GitHub dot com, to Satya Nadella, is either intentionally phoning it in nor waking up in the morning asking himself, “how can I frustrate the efforts of people out there?”
And anyway, because most people are trying their best, regardless of how the outcomes line up to affect my life and my interests personally, really do not deserve my scorn and derision. If I were in their situations, very little if anything would actually change. So spouting insults at these people who I don’t know, and whose roles I don’t really understand, is really not a mature, productive, nor fair thing to do.
[1] if you are curious I’d say murderers, etc. dominate that group.
It's interesting that maturing and growing up for me has resulted in opposite conclusions to yours. We're all different, of course, but I'd like to offer a different perspective.
> And anyway, because most people are trying their best, regardless of how the outcomes line up to affect my life and my interests personally, really do not deserve my scorn and derision.
The fact that most people are "trying their best" doesn't mean that their goals and interests can't be selfish, or that their actions can't negatively impact others. Particularly people who pursue positions of power, in politics or corporations, often treat others with hostility. And unlike most hostile people, it's these high-rank individuals that have the capability to impact millions of people.
So while I agree with your overall sentiment that well-intentioned people don't deserve my scorn and derision, the real world has taught me that governments and corporations often abuse my trust, my rights, my freedoms, and my quality of life. And for that, the least I can do is speak freely about how I feel about them as people on an online forum. I'm sure that my actions have practically zero impact on their lives, unlike theirs on mine.
What would you say about people who knowingly do actions that will lead to widespread harm and future deaths even though they're killing no one directly?
Murdering can be done very well without ever having to touch weapon.
>What would you say about people who knowingly do actions that will lead to widespread harm and future deaths even though they're killing no one directly?
Are we talking about scientists here too or just those who give orders?
Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon and many things can be used for widespread harm.
What if you are working on something that can be used both ways? Spread good and death?
I don't always get it right but I try not go on the internet and contribute even more anger and negativity that is already there. Try not to be a dick to other people.
It's not really for anybody's sake except my own, because I'm the one who has to sit with a mind full of shit at the end of the day and I'm just going to wear myself down. Nobody who matters is gonna read any of the bile I could write and change who they are, after all.
I think it's healthy, even necessary, to utterly distrust microsoft (or any large compny, for that matter). And while I don't think it's a-ok to call an individual microsft employee a monkey by name I think it IS a-ok to say any microsoft product is 'written by monkeys' or any other suitable derogatory term.
The way github develops is steered by microsoft-the-company and not so much by it's individual employees. A company, especially such a huge one, is not to be trusted and can (should) be made fun of.
At 95 you're a lot closer to the end of everything than the start, your body is really giving up and it is exceedingly difficult to enjoy anything much.
The speculation is that buffet would likely give up his entire wealth and have his expertise wiped to wind back his biological clock 70 years. Would he? I don't know, ask him maybe.
What can you do with $100m at 95 you would actually enjoy? Again ask him. Or any elderly friend or relative. It is unlike to be a fun conversation, at least in my experience.
At 25 if you have a windfall of only $1000 you've likely got some ideas!
>What can you do with $100m at 95 you would actually enjoy?
At 95 with 100m, it's less about what I can do with that time left and more about how to make the world better off by the time I croak. I lived my life, as far as I'm concerned.
Putting it another way: I'm out the door in 2 weeks, some people would spend it relaxing. I'd make sure to document as much as I can and keep the transition as low friction as possible.
Note that Warren's personal wealth has been vastly more than he and three generations of his ancestors could ever possibly spend however frivolously for /decades/ now.
The only thin you can do with that money is give it away in charity or politics.
So what has he done with that time? He doesn't seem to be into frivolous spending much at all as far as is reported.
>It almost feels as if the US need(s|ed) to be a bit more involved in the Ukraine war in order to keep their finger on the pulse of how conflicts are...
This grates a little after the utter debacle of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya ...
I'd go 180 degrees the other way. The US needs to be less involved so it can focus on the cancerous legal corruption of all the rackets. Without dealing with that the wrong things will always be built for the wrong reasons at huge cost.
Needless to say building the wrong things for the wrong reasons at huge expense is exactly what the military industrial complex wants and spends a great deal on influence to achieve.
He definitely wants us to think that about his integrity, his fans even more so and in fairness, he's pretty good. Not quite the sunday-school capitalism perfection that some would have us believe. Which can grate a bit if you've looked in detail at his career.
Maybe, but I’m not perfect either. The scale is just different. It’s clear that the standard for rich people isn’t all that high, so in the company of the remaining 1B+ crowd he looks pretty decent.
I’ve never quite understood the meme about Warren Buffett being a More Ethical Billionaire™. The defenses are always like “It’s not fair to judge him solely for BNSF giving rail workers one paid sick day per year because he also owns GEICO, which settled a suit last year about (among other things) illegally surveilling and telling employees to call the police on people that approached them about unionizing”
The "white knight" purchase of Salomon Bros stake to "save" them from a hostile takeover was a redistribution of wealth from the existing shareholders who would have accepted the deal to him & his fund. Is that evil? No, I don't think so. Is it perfect ethics, that's a personal ethical call. Colluding with management to redistribute wealth from the shareholders professional managers are meant to serve to yourself? Certainly profitable. Salomon managers kept their jobs and bonuses too. Buffet spoke about how impressed with their ethics he was and that being his motivation. Ok.
The purchase of the Goldman's stake during the GFC at what was it a 20% discount to market? Evil? Again no. Did he insist instead of just taking a huge windfall, on underwriting an offer at that price and throwing it open to small investors so anyone who would back the bank in the crisis collects 20% on top of buying on market? That would be hugely admirable, democratic and patriotic but less profitable.
Going to the start, moving Berkshire's pension fund from debt to equity. Did he get the approval of all the pension plan's beneficiaries for that change in risk? He was right, fine, sure. Was that his risk to take on their behalf? Worked out great. Do you want your pension fund manager going against the accepted wisdom on risk? Well you do if it works, but you can't take on the risk in hindsight. There are no shortage of managers who /know/ they're right and the market is wrong, like he did then. Do you want them to act on that with your assets without your full and informed consent? You (and I) do if it's Warren Buffet but he was not Warren Buffet yet.
On the standards of investment managers he is pretty good, as I said. Is he this perfect paragon of ethics. Well his fans seem to think so (and loudly) and they are allowed to. As am I to differ with that assessment. This is worlds away from declaring that Buffet is in league with both Darth Vader and Sauron to torture innocent babies to an early death and a fate of never having heard of Benjamin Graham. I would say he is far more on the right side of things than wrong and has been largely a force for good in the investment industry. "Which of his perfections impresses you the most?" Give me a break. Critical faculties are worth keeping.
Yeah he’s not quite Jack Welch level of dissonance between reality and his fanboys, but he’s hardly some superhero for profiting from the great financialization of the US economy. He made sure his book got bailed out during the GFC. He cheered on Wells Fargo while they opened up a bunch of fraudulent accounts. And so on.
Well yeah, if he wouldn't have profited from the great financialization of the US economy, he couldn't have amassed nearly the wealth that he has amassed, and we wouldn't be talking about him now, so the point is kind of moot. Let's say that, in the cut-throat world of big money, he is (or, at this point, was), one of the nicer guys...
And when he found out about Wells Fargo's behavior, he liquidated the position and has remained out of it. I fail to see the problem with what he did in that case. As a ~5% holder he (Berkshire) had no special control over the company in terms of micro-audits to surface such fraudulent behavior promptly as it was happening.
> As a ~5% holder he (Berkshire) had no special control over the company in terms of micro-audits to surface such fraudulent behavior promptly as it was happening.
Apropos of this particular scenario, acting like an individual shareholder with your 5% of a company's stock is helpless to exert influence on the board is not at all accurate. Realistically, at that scale, anyone who holds even 1% is someone you better listen to (not necessarily follow, to be clear) when they pick up the phone.
And that's when its someone who is also not someone who opens their mouth and has millions of followers who also hold stock, like Buffett.
Totally depends on who "us" and isn't. What problem is being solved etc. In the aggregate clearly the trade off has been beneficial to the most people. If what you want to do got traded, well you can still dream.
Think about using a modern x86-64 cpu core to run one process with no operating system. Know exactly what is in cache memory. Know exactly what deadlines you can meet and guarantee that.
It's quite a different thing to running a general purpose OS to multiplex each core with multiple processes and a hardware walked page table, TLB etc.
Obviously you know what you prefer for your laptop.
As we get more and more cores perhaps the system designs that have evolved may head back toward that simplicity somewhat? Anything above %x cpu usage gets its own isolated, un-interrupted core(s)? Uses low cost IPC? Hard to speculate with any real confidence.
I just don't know that I see it running any better for the vast majority of processes that I could imagine running on it. Was literally just transcoding some video, playing a podcast, and browsing the web. Would this be any better?
I think that is largely my qualm with the dream. The only way this really works is if we had never gone with preemptive multitasking, it seems? And that just doesn't seem like a win.
You do have me curious to know if things really do automatically pin to a cpu if it is above a threshold. I know that was talked of some, did we actually start doing that?
> Was literally just transcoding some video, playing a podcast, and browsing the web.
Yeah that's the perfect use case for current system design. Nobody sane wants to turn that case into an embedded system running a single process with hard deadline guarantees. Your laptop may not be ideal for controlling a couple of tonnes of steel at high speed, for example. Start thinking about how you would design for that and you'll see the point (whether you want to agree or not).
Apologies, almost missed that you had commented here.
I confess I assumed writing controllers for a couple of tonnes of steel at high speed would not use the same system design as a higher level computer would? In particular, I would not expect most embedded applications to use virtual memory? Is that no longer the case?
This isn't really answering my question. Have they started using virtual memory in hard real time applications? Just generally searching the term confirms that they are still seen as not compatible.
In addition to search engines you can learn a great deal about all sorts of things using an LLM. This works well enough if you don't want to pay. They are very patient and you canb go as deep as you want. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DuckDuckGo+AI+Chat&ia=chat&duckai=...
But why do we think that? The complexity would almost certainly still exist. Would just now be up a layer. With no guarantees that you could hit the same performance characteristics that we are able to hit today.
Put another way, if that would truly be a better place, what is stopping people from building it today?
Performance wouldn’t be the same, and that’s why nobody is manufacturing it. The industry prefers living with higher complexity when it yields better performance. That doesn’t mean that some people like in this thread wouldn’t prefer if things were more simple, even at the price of significantly lower performance.
> The complexity would almost certainly still exist.
That doesn’t follow. A lot of the complexity is purely to achieve the performance we have.
I'm used to people arguing for simpler setups because the belief is that they could make them more performant. This was specifically the push for RISC back in the day, no?
To that end, I was assuming the idea would be that we think we could have faster systems if we didn't have this stuff. If that is not the assumption, I'm curious what the appeal is?
That’s certainly not the assumption here. The appeal is, as I said, that the systems would be more predictable and tractable, instead of being a tarpit of complexity. It would be easier to reason about them, and about their runtime characteristics. Side-channel attacks wouldn’t be a thing, or at least not as much. Nowadays it’s rather difficult to reason about the runtime characteristics of code on modern CPUs, about what exactly will be going on behind the scenes. More often than not, you have to resort to testing how specific scenarios will behave, rather than being able to predict the general case.
I guess I don't know that I understand why you would dream of this, though? Just go out and program on some simpler systems? Retro computing makes the rounds a lot and is perfectly doable.
There is plenty of data that shows that people are bad judges of their future opinions. “If X happened to me, I wouldn’t want to live anymore” often turns out to not be true.
That makes it questionably whether consent years or even months ago implies consent now.
And yes, that is very problematic in cases such as Alzheimer’s where people cannot consent now.
These are untested treatments with unknown impacts. Consider playing Russian roulette with the patient. The risk isn't the same but the outcomes have the same range. From nothing to death.
So, like, was that satire? I got a good laugh out of "Multiplayer PowerPoint" either way.
reply