Re: Hostile SIM
The attack was also possible via eSIM too
24 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Feb 2010
> "I'd quite like a tool (running entirely locally on my own hardware, with no cloud service and no copyright-thieving grifters making bank on it via subscription fees) that digests a manuscript and derives a scene-by-scene timeline, that I could then query interactively and use to plan my next round of edits," he wrote.
Charlie can set himself up with a 24 or 32GB GPU and self-host one of the Open Source LLMs, such as Qwen, using llama.cpp, vLLM, Lemonaid or whatever... As a bonus could run Hermes against that Local LLM and use it to actively mitigate massively distributed LLM scraping on his blog site.
"Personalised litte brown paper bags clearly outweigh any of those negatives" - you did read TFA yeah? The Councillors went against the officer's advice and refused permission for the scheme.
Given the mix use brief for the site, there would clearly be opportunity here to truly have a "green" datacentre - think one where the site is used for mix of high-density residential and the datacentre, with waste heat being used for residential heating. It's much more work for the applicant though.
>What in God's green Earth is Starlink doing with all of that address space ? There has to be a technical reason. No company buys address blocks for bragging rights.
You're looking at this from an IPv4 perspective, rather than IPv6. Compare my ISP / Starlink dynamically allocating me a single IPv4 address, vs it giving an IPv6 /48, /56 or /64 allocation. The "meanest" of those, the /64 which Starlink allocates, is 18.4 quintillion IPv6 addresses. So what really should be compared is the gross number of addresses divided by the range allocated to each terminal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#General_allocation
Nonsense, it's generally absolutely fine to call a public facing API server api, and it helps to do so. Giving it some cryptic hostname might feel more secure, but it just ends up sowing confusion. After all, it is presumably public facing for a reason: there will be client-side JS (or applications) with knowledge of the cryptic hostname, therefore trivial to gain knowledge of it via them.
Of course there's no point having the api public facing if it's either a) no-longer used; or b) only used internally by the backend or other public facing servers...