Jup. I think I’ve had some 3 actual issues the past 2 years on EndeavourOS. But the Endeavour team did a good job of warning me on Discord/RSS or at least provide tutorials and explanations afterwards.

One of the issues was in regard to Grub (fixed by Timeshift rollback and a one-liner), one was in regard to some rogue Nvidia bug crashing the login window (fixed by Timeshift rollback and waiting a few days before updating again), and one was Nvidia removing support for GTX1000 cards and older (Nvidia, WHYYYYYYYY?!).

For reference, I had what felt like similar annoying bugs (and much worse) on Windows 10 about every month, but without any useful support from Microsoft. :(

EDIT: speaking of the devil. A fourth issue just popped up.

Sure, but going to a proper restaurant tends to cost a bit more than doing it yourself.

Like, making some roasted pork with steamed veggies, sauce, and potatoes takes some 10+40 minutes of preparation and about 10 minutes of cleanup, and it costs me about 25$ (and is, of course, not including any deals). That’s for 4 grownups, plus some leftovers for lunch next day.

Obviously food and restaurant prices differ wildly depending on where you live, but I’m not sure I could get a decent and healthy takeout/restaurant meal for less than 60$ for 4 people in my area (assuming that 4 kebabs can be considered “decent and healthy”).

That’d leave me with a hourly “food-wage” of roughly 35$ (or 75$ if we’d assume 100$ for takeout), which I think is acceptable. I’d not make more than that after taxes either way.

And now we have those who’d rather work for recreation, and those who’d rather work as recreation. I can find better things to spend my money on than food.

I have to confess that I do not know how every European language says it, but I do know that both German and Danish say and write the equivalent of “o’ clock/on the clock”, eg. “Klokken, Uhr”.

The only time I’ve seen “x hours” used, is either in programming, that abomination that is “military time”, or when defining time from now, eg. “Let’s meet in 4 hours, at 20 on the clock”.

16 hours is mostly an American military way to say it. 16 on the clock (or similar for different languages) is the main European way to say it.

TV time and military time don’t even use 24 hours. You can have a TV show that goes from 23:30 to 25:15 (25>24, in 24h it would be 01:15).

I imagine those who call 24h “military time” also say “I’ll be home from work on Friday at 4100 AM”, which makes about the same amount of sense.

First of, in Europe we use ISO 8601, which is quite different from the military time which the USA uses.

Second, in my home country we still say “16 on the clock” or “15:45 on the clock” (just translated to the native language, eg. “Klokken 16”) to signify we’re talking time and not weight or distance.

The speech is about software (and laws) not being able to properly limit software, and that as long as we have “General-Purpose Computing” (aka. PCs or hardware/computers that you have access to) we will not be able to properly limit software. Cory just didn’t think as far as the solution 15 years later being to move the hardware on which your software runs away from you.

It is quite tragicomic how we went from mainframes and terminals in the 60’s to GPC/PCs in the 90’s and now are moving back to cloud (aka. mainframes and terminals but on a global scale).

I mean, compared to other blockers it has awesome out-of-box functionality, but… It just kinda lacks something. And those filters are that something. ;)

Oh no! Sorry, while I did use LoRa a lot back during uni (also writing custom protocols and stuff for semi-autonomous coordinated drones), the above was just an example for the sake of understanding.

That said, I do like to read about LoRa and doing hobby projects with it, so Reticulum does look very interesting. TIL

Uh, also remember to enable the cookie and annoyance filters in Ublock. It doesn’t do much by default.

Thank you!

But don’t say that too early, I think the exchange further down could have gone better (not least from my side).

The above is mostly from the top of my head plus most of us are surely still tired after tonight’s’ festivities. Though, I hope I’m not just reiterating what @[email protected] already knows, so I hope others will correct me or add on.

Just saw this comment.

Yes, you are completely right. That’s likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner.

Obviously TCP/IP is better at describing TCP/IP than OSI, though while OSI also can be used to describe TCP/IP in a sub-optimal manner, TCP/IP cannot be used to describe OSI.

I think I found the source of confusion.

The OSI model describes networking in general, defining a model in which almost all networks can be categorized and compared. This is important as hundreds (if not thousands) of standards and methods exist for handling each separate layer - some publicized, but many hidden/propriety/unpublicized.

Meanwhile, the TCP/IP model describes only a very narrow subset of networks, though it just so happens to be the most used kind of network - The Internet - is part of this.

This means that if you are working with the internet, then TCP/IP will likely cover all your needs, but as soon as you move onto more specialized or simply uncommon network types TCP/IP will be close to useless.

We could take an example:

I’m setting up a LoRa network between some neighbors, measuring stations, etc. The network will not be connected directly to the internet, so there will be no possibility of data transfer between the LoRa network and the internet until you reach the OSI Presentation layer.

The LoRa network will need to be much more efficient than the general-purpose internet-networking, and since only a few machines will be connected we’ll use only a single octet as device identifier (alternative to MAC/IP, lets call it SoMAC), also having to write our own discovery service.

Likewise, we will make a new custom transport layer based on TCP, but with only space for that single octet identifier, no flags, no IP, and no checksums (I like to live dangerous). Let’s call that SoSTRIP.

At last, we’ll need to write some kind of socket to make sending the information easy, for simplicity we’ll use a Unnamed Pipe.

Now, how would we go about representing this in both models (OSI vs. TCP/IP)?

In OSI we’d have:

• Physical Layer: LoRa (duh)
• Data Link Layer: LoRa driver with SoMAC discovery
• Network Layer: SoMAC addressing
• Transport Layer: SoSTRIP
• Session Layer: Unnamed Pipe
• Presentation Layer: ASCII can be whatever
• Application Layer: Cat

In TCP/IP we’d have:

• Link Layer: LoRa + SoMAC
• Internet Layer: No IP/Not Applicable/SoMAC(?)
• Transport Layer: SoSTRIP, except it isn’t compatible with either TCP nor IP.
• Application Layer: Unnamed Pipe + ASCII + Cat

Please note that this is purely for demonstration purposes, as it’s absolutely unfair to compare TCP/IP and OSI in this way, since they both are designed for different purposes, with TCP/IP being more popular but narrow, and OSI being more general but overly complicated for most use cases.

Also, please feel free to correct me, since it’s been a hot moment since I had about OSI and TCP/IP in uni.

==EDIT== Formatting

Apologies, that’s my fault, I thought you wrote “TCP model(/protocol)” and not “TCP/IP model”, which are indeed two very different things.

I feel that the OSI model focuses more on the specific layers with their relations and physical/digital setup, while the TCP/IP model has more of a abstract and “high-level”-focus. I think both have their ups and downs, though I’m still confused what about OSI is “theoretical and has never been used”.

What do you mean “Theoretical” and “Never been used”? Are you writing this by sending off radio waves purely with your mind? Am I the only one using a modem and computer? (/j, but it seems to me that you’re asking “why a plane needs engines and wings, when it already has a payload”)

TCP (and UDP) just describe how to assemble the data into packages which can be somewhat reliably reassembled on the other end.

While it does have an address stamped on top (IP), it doesn’t know how to get anywhere by itself. That’s where the bottom 3 OSI layers come in (the physical wires - or wireless spectra/wavelengths - the data is transmitted through, the specifications of how the embedded devices talk to each other over these wires, and how to discover other embedded or other devices on a network). I can very much assure you that the wires do exist and are indeed in use.

Contrary, the upper layers are more about keeping communication going once a connection has been established.

I’m uncomfortable.

Frieren is a big offender too. Everyone and everything is just a feeling or item in German pronounced in some weird way.

If you want another example, try counting to 10 in hex (base 16).

Also, base 10 is always base 10, but “10” in base 2 is 2 in all counting systems above base 2 (since base 2 doesn’t actually include 2, just like base 10 doesn’t include “A”). Likewise, 10 in base 10 represented in base 2 would be 1010. ;)

In the Nordics most of us are “pig-pink”. :D