I think technical people understand the mechanics of using Passkeys, having them backed up to multiple devices etc, but there's no way my 70 year old father is going to be able to understand that. He barely knows the difference between the computer login and his gmail login. My parents are also not wealthy-enough to have Apple take care of all of this for them. He has a hand-me-down Linux laptop because all he needs is Google Chrome. Thankfully I've been able to teach my parents to write down their passwords in a password book.
I can't tell you how many times I've ask my father "what's your google password" and he says "I don't have a google password". I like the idea of eliminating passwords, but inevitably his phone is going to break or his computer is going to crash and he needs a way to recover.
The password book of every person around me become awful over time. They don’t distinguish between uppercase and lowercase, they write bad notes, most of the content is outdated, sometimes there duplicates and overall cause me more headache than anything.
I hate password books. I don’t have a better solution though.
For now, I teach them to use chrome password manager for now and log in their chrome account when they need help. It sucks too. But at least I don’t get angry with their notes.
So do I, but this is annoying because I need to have physical access to both of the keys when setting up 2FA on an account, or hope that I remember to add the backup yubikey when I get back home.
Computer security is hard, and I think a "security label" would give a false sense of safety. Requiring manufacturers to respond to critical security vulnerabilities for a given period of time sounds like a good idea, but such rules often have unintended side-effects (like impacting startups, who maybe couldn't afford the certification or can't guarantee long term support). What we really need is local-only device access, so that I can firewall a device off completely from the internet, and still make full use of it with a local controller like home assistant. Locking down devices with the threat of DMCA violations to reverse-engineers actively reduces device security, and takes away my ability to fix devices myself.
This overall strikes me as much lower priority than the currently ongoing ATSC 3.0 DRM doom. Please please please do something about this nightmare that broadcasters are imposing on the public. Don't let broadcasters take away my ability to watch live TV without an internet connection (resulting in a complete emergency broadcast system failure?). Don't let broadcasters take away my ability to record/time-shift live TV using software-based DVRs (e.g. Plex, Jellyfin), which could never possibly meet the "Nextgen TV" certification requirements!
For anyone using an HDHomeRun or any other OTA capture card, this effectively kills the ability to watch and record content using Plex/Jellyfin/Emby/etc.
Only "certified" devices are allowed access to the encryption keys. Only closed, fully locked down black box recording systems will ever be "certified". Don't have a Windows machine with a fully verified HDCP chain? Sorry, you can no longer watch OTA TV.
It’s funny how this is actually worse than cable. I still have and use the old HDHomeRun Prime (no longer made), which has a cablecard inserted into it (which your cable company is legally required to provide, or at least it used to be?) and it emits unencrypted video on every channel, except for I believe “premium” channels which is basically only HBO.
My local cable company gets around this by strategically pricing everyone towards using their new cable boxes which are essentially digital TV over DOCSIS internet. The prices for the IP TV plans (which they still call "cable") are less than $100 per month, but I was quoted over $300 per month for a traditional cable plan that could use a CableCard.
Yeah these sorts of practices seem to be everywhere. I have Comcast Business (for internet) at home, and even for that, they want you to use their provided cable modem + "security gateway". I told them I wanted to use my own modem and router, and they told me that would cost more! I can only assume they gather data about your home network and sell it to third parties, and don't want to lose that revenue stream. And I assume that device also broadcasts that "xfinity" public WiFi network as well.
I of course think the practice is disgusting regardless, but it surprised me that they'd do it on their business-class product too. Would be really nice to see some regulation aimed at prohibiting this sort of thing.
(To be fair, I recently called Optimum for cable internet setup at another address, and told them I wanted to use my own equipment, and they still gave me the same price. At least some companies aren't engaging in this bullshit. They did try to upsell me to a much faster package than I wanted, and tried to get me to add their cellular product, but I guess that sort of thing is a normal practice anywhere, and at least the sales rep wasn't pushy and it was easy to say no.)
We had this situation in Germany as well. The providers argued that their routers/etc. are part of their network and the user network starts behind that. If the user wants to use their own router etc they can connect it behind the provided one yadayadayada. In the end their lost the argument. The providers need to accept any router and have to hand out the connection credentials (the provided boxes came with backed in credentials) so users can connect with their own hardware. But most providers will now refuse to give support in case you run your own router. That’s all for internet though. Don‘t know how cable is handled nowadays.
But this reminds me of the day a nice telecom call center person wanted me to get their router. The argument he gave me was: „with our router we have access and can automatically fix update and optimize the router for you“. My answer was down the line of: „that’s precisely what I don‘t want“. A few years later a huge Telekom blackout happened across west Germany or so. Apparently the error was a faulty update which misconfigured the user credentials. All boxes went offline for the users (I guess the service ports where still available) Classic Murphy.
Comcast also has deployed this other trick where you call them for support, they'll just say they can't do anything if you use your own modem. It's malicious incompetence.
Oh for business users they'll offer to send someone with the threat that if it's anything on the premises or it is an intermittent issue resolved by the time they get there then they'll tack a $100 charge on.
EDIT: I've written before about an issue caused by a miswritten provisioning file on their end that involved eventually writing their executives to get it resolved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35595663
With Comcast, you can disable the public Wi-Fi on your end (just log in) and you can also ask them to put your cable modem into "bridge mode", to use with your own router, but to get static IPs you need your router in router mode and it will get a dynamic IP and the static IPs.
I was sick of the way that Comcast prices creep up so I switched away anyway.
> I can only assume they gather data about your home network and sell it to third parties, and don't want to lose that revenue stream
Nah. You are just paying for the privilege of breaking their unified management platform.
As an ISP "power users" break the uniformity that leads to economies of scale in management, and often over-estimate their own abilities leading to increased support costs.
DOCSIS in practice does not guarantee interoperability. Each ISP has its own supported modems list. Deviating from their blessed hardware means they will not send the special ISP specific firmware that’s bug compatible with their setup. Or they might refuse to activate it. Of course any issues are immediately blamed on customer owned CPE.
Because of this the real point of demarcation is the approved modem/gateway’s Ethernet port not the coaxial junction box.
So I work mostly with fiber, which is a bit different than DOCSIS in terms of demarcation and interoperability, but at least with fiber, these economies of scale in management can also be realized without having this unified management platform, although it can indeed impact the revenue stream. I work at an ISP where LAN management is an add-on option (that most users take), and so we maintain this uniformity :
- unmanaged clients ("power users") get an ONT that is very easy to monitor remotely, and we never had a situation where they were unable to setup a DHCP client
- managed clients pay a bit more and get an AP/router that they cannot directly configure, except for things like the wifi password and some NAT mappings.
It would not make sense to price it this way if we were selling data about their home network, and I suppose that's part of the reason other big ISPs here prohibit their users from connecting to the ONT directly.
How much does it cost to say "sorry, we cannot help you because you're using your own router" like Comcast support does? I can't imagine how that would cost more than them supporting their own router.
Comcast and Optimum both offer low-cost cell phone networks. They resell service from the big three, but largely rely on WiFi calling. Phones automatically connect to the default modem/router combos.
Of course, the big strategy here is to try and get to a point where they can free up a whole lot more spectrum on the cables for internet and not have to densify CMTS a whole bunch.
(Of course, having spyware cable boxes helps with other revenue streams, too)
Comcast "forced" me off of mine by upping my rate to $180/mo for the cheapest cable-only package when there were contract deals available with internet and more channels for $110/mo.
No contract rates available without turning in the cablecard. Switched symmetric GB fiber provider for $65/mo and pay for streaming TV during the NHL season.
Cable television (and, to some extent "television" in general) has the stink of a dying industry all over it. Of course, "cable TV" during my lifetime has often been a type of business run, in many areas, as a sort of personal piggy-bank / for "rents" extraction, and not in any kind of public or consumer oriented manner at all [1]. But, really, at this point, cable is just milking as much as it can out of the generations that still are very dependent on it as it sinks into oblivion.
Cable wasn't exactly great, well, ever ... but, even through perhaps about 2015, it was at least somewhat watchable. In the past few years, I've had the ... (mis)fortune of being in a household with cable (after years of only even being able to watch when I went to someone else's home). Commercials were bad enough 10 years ago. Now, they hardly show any scenes in shows / movies before there is a commercial. Movies with runtimes of 1.5 hours, will run for 2.75 hours on TV. This can be on "broadcast" stations as well as cable-only. The barrage of ads only drops off after about 10pm.
Even worse, they now have very "dynamic" time slot ads, 5s ads interspersed with 15s ads etc... Plus, the ads themselves often enough feel made for the "TikTok" generation.
Just an absolute mess.
I'll never look back at TV with any deep nostalgia, though there is a bit of nostalgia for some aspects. It was never a highlight of life - like Seinfeld quips in one of his stand-ups: "... everyone on TV is doing something better than what you are doing ... you never see someone on TV sliding off the couch with potato chip crumbs all over their face ..." (something to that effect). But, it's really "jumped the shark", these days.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/obituaries/john-j-rigas-d... (I can't quickly find some of the material I was looking for - practices of companies in the 90s, fighting any kind of innovation while fees exploded etc. ... There were noteworthy laws enacted, incl. 1992 cable-related act and the notorious 1996 telco act ... lots of bad anti tech anti consumer crap mixed in all of it, and lots of private corralling of money, in any case)
Cable has definitely gone downhill. I remember we got our first cable box (a fairly large black metal box with a channel selector dial on it) in 1985 or so, and it was actually pretty good. Not that many channels, but as I remember it (I was very young, so it's a bit fuzzy), most channels had no commercials at all, even between programs.
I haven't had cable since 2005 or so, when I canceled it. I think I got cable TV just because I assumed that was just what I was supposed to do, since I'd had it for nearly all my life. But after a year or so of living on my own, I realized I rarely watched it, and got rid of it. Haven't looked back, and I aggressively avoid being exposed advertising as much as possible. When I'm visiting family the TV is usually on in the background (with some cable channel on), and it's astonishing to me how little actual programming is there these days. Feels like mostly ads, and, as you point out, normal-length movies have their time slots expanded by at least 50% to account for ads. Gross.
I wish I could switch. It's ridiculous that in San Francisco my only realistic choice is Comcast. No fiber (despite being one block from the 3rd Street fiber trunk), and MonkeyBrains won't guarantee the speeds I want.
Either way, kudos to you for voting with your wallet here. I wish we could all do that in every situation.
I'm a little bit surprised they didn't offer you a better rate when you called to cancel. A friend of mine has been riding a 1-year signup promotion for a good 5+ years now; every year when they're about to switch him to regular pricing, he calls them and tells them he's unhappy with the new rate and will cancel. But in your case, I guess Comcast's profits are solid enough (and they know most people don't have an alternative) that they can be choosy about their customers.
You can thank your local corrupt politicians for maintaining Comcast's monopoly in your area. Comcast pays good money to have those votes, money it takes from you and your neighbors.
The capital expenditure to build fiber is also quite large, Sonic.net, Astound and others have spent money to build fiber in parts of California, but maintaining and using existing infrastructure is just cheaper than building new, especially if trenching is involved.
Up until 2 years ago, I used to use an HDHomeRun Prime with a cablecard for just basic cable (only a dozen or so channels) because I had terrible antenna reception in my apartment (I was only about 2 or 3 miles from the transmitter, but with a hill in-between). It cost me something like $60/month for just the basic cable (from RCN). Fortunately I've now moved and have great OTA reception on ATSC 1.0 so I was able to ditch the expensive cable service.
I really think the basic broadcast channels should be free to watch on whatever medium you choose. These should be free on clear QAM cable without needing a cable card.
When I looked into this, it seemed the "premium" channel restriction (formally called "Copy Control Information") was something that was done client-side in software, because Windows Media Center was one of the only software able to play copy-once content. Have people tried cracking the drm scheme used?
Unfortunately not always the case in NYC at least. Verizon (FIOS) had basically every channel unencrypted. When I had to switch to Spectrum I discovered they encrypt basically every channel save for ones available over OTA.
> Only "certified" devices are allowed access to the encryption keys. Only closed, fully locked down black box recording systems will ever be "certified".
I really really hope this doesn't go through, but if it does, I can't wait for the day when these keys are inevitably leaked.
These modern systems tend to have a seperate key for every consumer. Ie. every single device ever produced has a seperate key.
If any device is cracked/leaked, they find out which one is cracked and send out new keys for every other device except the one that was cracked.
Through clever use of key hierarchies, you only need to send out a small number of new keys over the air to make sure every legit user gets a new one, but your leaked key doesn't get replaced so anyone using that gets locked out.
There is no master key to leak - if you leak one key, you only lock out one device. All other keys are ephemeral.
Is that what they do with satellite TV? Not knowing anything, I'd think they'd need a unique connection for every user, like Internet streaming, to have unique keys.
Encrypt video broadcast with a master key pair. Then just continually broadcast the decryption key, encrypted for every customer individually, alongside. If there's a mysterious "activation" period after turning on the device initially, it's probably something like that. Rotate the master every so often to kick off users.
You can do neat things with key hierarchies to avoid this.
Group all your customers into leaves of a binary tree. 100 million customers is a tree ~27 levels deep.
Issue every customer a private key on a smartcard. Also generate keys for each node in the tree, and have the smartcard also preloaded with the keys from that customer to the root. (ie. 26 extra keys on the card - easy to store).
Now, whenever a customer leaks their key, you cut that customer out of the tree and regenerate all nodes up to the root. You transmit over the air, every few minutes, all the modified keys. Each new key is transmitted multiple times encrypted with the children of that node.
Now every legit keyholder either has the master key, or some set of keys that can decrypt the master key (as a combination of the keys on the card and the keys transmitted over the air). Any banned cardholders do not.
Using this method, even banning hundreds of keys, there won't be more than tens of thousands of keys that need to be transmitted over the air, even though you might have 100 million cardholders. That's very transmittable every few minutes, meaning that honest cardholders won't have to wait more than a few minutes for service, even if their tree-neighbour is a hax0r.
This has already happened unfortunately. In my area (Boston) nearly all of the ATSC 3.0 channels were encrypted the day they went on the air (CBS, ABC, NBC). As a result, they are unwatchable. We need to petition the FCC to force broadcasters to remove the encryption.
During severe weather, when the internet goes out, I can receive video updates on the weather situation with OTA TV. Even if cell service is available, it may be spotty or overloaded, and getting this info over a broadcast instead of through a network is simply using the right tool for the job.
I'm not talking about an individual problem, sometimes events cause issues that are regional in scope, not limited by ISP, and also result in degraded cell service. If you like, replace "severe" with "extreme".
A microSD card is just MMC that's socketed instead of being soldered to the package/board. It's good for flexibility. With 4GB RAM, performance should be a non-issue either way.
....over a narrow bus, and with controllers that have to make assumptions about power being yanked at any moment so they can't do proper SSD-like things that eMMC chips can do.
Narrow bus? I think current SD card standards can go way past 1GB per second (note: see edit below). It's an implementation detail.
In practice, these cheap boards will have a cheap eMMC soldered in that can't do these fancy things anyways. It's not going to be same quality chip like in flagship phones.
Once that cheap eMMC fails, the device is bricked.
Edit: SD card standards still can't go past 1 GB/s, max 985 MB/s. Either way, plenty for cheap SBCs.
SD cards as present on Raspberry Pi, even the Pi 4, don't go beyond ~60MB/s. Older Pis get around ~20MB/s. It's the worst bottleneck of the system. Where do you get that 1 GB/s figure from?
Bear in mind that SD Express is SD only in name and otherwise it is just an NVMe in SD form-factor. And how much UHS-II is still an SD is somewhat questionable.
odroid boards use a modular eMMC design. You can buy the size you want and swap them out if one fails. You can even see that in their picture (label M).
I don't think even flagship phones have "quality chip" inside. Phone OS's are still running without swap memory support to cope with poor quality of their onboard eMMC (which leads to OOM-killing "background" apps instead of just swapping memory out.)
I wish more people understood this. People should demand higher quality SD cards (and slot controllers) instead of insisting on soldering equivalent chip on the board!
Of course wouldn't say no to M.2 slot (or similar) either. :-)
Yeah, the read performance is like 10 times faster than a microsd on an rpi4. Also having your boot drive in eMMC is less of a risky because they are usually more reliable than microSD.
eMMC does have a wider bus and dual edge clocking so it's not a straight comparison. I think read might be fundamentally faster on eMMC but writing mostly depends on the NAND chips used inside.
UHS-I did add a dual-edge mode at 50MHz, but SD never got up to the 8 bits MMC supports (also at about 50 MHz, so UHS-I should be roughly half the speed of high-end MMC). UHS-II went to LVDS instead, which despite using fewer lanes can support much higher clock rates, so it’s not immediately obvious which is theoretically faster with newer versions. I need to get to work or I’d do the math.
UHS-3 doubles the LVDS speed, and SD Express turned them into a PCIe lane. I haven’t kept up to see what MMC standards have been added lately, if any, but my impression is that it has been stagnant for a while.
Q: The SD-card speed increase is very welcome! Was an eMMC or M.2 slot considered?
A: We don't think there's a compelling advantage to socketed eMMC over SD. M.2 would have been fun, but we didn't like the form factor considerations, and had no spare PCIe lanes. I think USB 3.0 SSDs are the way to go for high-performance storage.
Maybe, I don't have another eMMC board to test with, but compared to my RPi 3 with an SD card, the eMMC feels way faster. Very noticeable doing an apt upgrade. Note I use all of my boards headless.
My Odroid-C2 runs a mainline kernel. I use it headless, so I'm not sure about graphics support, but its been otherwise extremely stable. It did take a year or two after release to get full upstream support. I'd imagine this new board will follow a similar trajectory.
I've also disabled wrapping (as recommended in that document), however I'm not a big fan of it. I do think that plain text wrapped at 72 or 80 characters looks much nicer. I wish thunderbird allowed me to select portions of the text to wrap, or to disable wrapping for selected portions (e.g. a code snippet). Is this handled better in other email clients?
It will because every line would end in a single trailing whitespace character. But that doesn't mean you cannot use Thunderbird with format=flowed enabled to respond to patch emails. Unless you're including a patch in the message and expect someone to use git am to apply it to their local git repo, having format=flowed set won't matter.
> I wish thunderbird allowed me to select portions of the text to wrap, or to disable wrapping for selected portions
You can sort of do it by copying unwrapped text from another program and pasting it into Thunderbird as quoted text (ctrl-shift-o or paste as quotation). But you will need to manually remove the quote markers from the beginning of each line.
I think it comes down to a lack of flexibility with the MUA composer. If you're using an editor like vim to compose the email, it would be easy enough to read the patch into the message by running
:r file-containing-patch
And then visually highlighting text and running:
:'<,'>s/$/\s/
to append whitespace to lines you don't want to be hard-wrapped in clients that support format=flowed
I can't tell you how many times I've ask my father "what's your google password" and he says "I don't have a google password". I like the idea of eliminating passwords, but inevitably his phone is going to break or his computer is going to crash and he needs a way to recover.