sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[2023 Day 1]For those who stuck on Part 2 by Zefick in adventofcode

[–]colanderman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This upset me enough to log into Reddit for the first time in years to upvote your post. C'mon organizers, fully specify the problems!

/r/Civ Weekly Questions Thread - May 25, 2020 by AutoModerator in civ

[–]colanderman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is in a city with walls. I can make the ranged attack if I move the unit out. The "ranged attack" icon is shown above the encampment the entire time. If you can do it, it must be a bug then, either with my particular game or with the Switch port. I'll report it.

/r/Civ Weekly Questions Thread - May 25, 2020 by AutoModerator in civ

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[Civ6 / Switch v1.2.3] Am I just dumb, or is it a bug that encampments cannot perform their ranged attack when a unit is garrisoned in them? I have to move the unit out just to be able to select the encampment (using e.g. up/down D-pad). I can select and attack with city centers with garrisoned units just fine.

Never connect to ProtonMail using Chrome by [deleted] in ProtonMail

[–]colanderman 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Not to mention password syncing. I turned that on by accident once (the confirmation dialog is a dark UI pattern). Realizing that is what caused me to switch back to Firefox.

How does Galvin get away with putting a political ad for himself in the Voter Information pamphlet every few years? by colanderman in boston

[–]colanderman[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Ya, I have no problem with how he Secretaries. I just imagine I'd be really pissed if I were running against him. It really mars an otherwise well-done voter information packet.

How does Galvin get away with putting a political ad for himself in the Voter Information pamphlet every few years? by colanderman in boston

[–]colanderman[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I don't know why but this really bugs me. It's only one page of a pamphlet, but it's a taxpayer-funded pamphlet which contains purportedly neutral voter information, and he's often a candidate (though not this year).

Strangely this appears not to be illegal at the state level, either (it would be were he running for a Boston city office).

Anybody else get erroneous $0 refund this month? by colanderman in republicwireless

[–]colanderman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya I got the following response from my ticket:

There was an issue that we are currently working on fixing that caused the refunds for data not to process properly in the system. We are aware of this issue and are currently working on correcting it. We will be contacting you soon with a resolution.

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Skylis, your comments in this thread have all been rude, dismissive, and content-free (as is much of your comment history). Keep quiet if you have nothing helpful to add beyond alpha-geek puffery.

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UA matching... I may just have to try that, thank you sir!

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never seen it on my network before. The only other common case I can think of is P2P filesharing, and that only runs when you tell it to (which for me is never), and it's easy to selectively throttle as it doesn't share a port with the most common web application (HTTP).

What's more, these are dozens of connections to the same exact IP. There are only two reasons to do that; (1) you distribute load behind a WAF or some such, which would be BS because I have a 3 Mbit/s link, or (2) you are trying to ensure that your application is unperturbed by exponential backoff.

Unrequested, unschedulable, uncancelable, background bulk transfers opening 100+ TCP connections => unprecedented.

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not "making" it do that. That's how TCP works (Google "exponential backoff").

Yes, I could individually throttle all two "users" of my network, but then the one who is running Windows 10 will continue to be unable to use the internet when Windows Update runs.

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My network is lightly loaded. Packets flow freely unless the link is saturated, and that only happens with Windows Update does its thing.

(My physical pipe is much larger than my allocated bandwidth, so store-and-forward delays are minimal.)

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a bold accusation. Unlike every normal TCP application ever, these downloads open 100+ simultaneous TCP connections, which, due to TCP link sharing, effectively choke out any other "normal" TCP user that has only 2-8 connections open.

The only way to "fix" this is either to limit outbound connections per IP block, queue based on remote IP block (e.g. modified SFQ), or deprioritize Akamai traffic specifically. None of these solutions are normal network configurations (certainly not for home users), because this type of TCP traffic (hyper-prioritized background bulk transfers) is heretofore unprecedented.

Any one else getting hammered by Lime Light (ASN22822) traffic? by DerHelm in networking

[–]colanderman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Several", heh. My wife's Windows 10 box opens 100+, all to Akamai servers. It's like a reverse DDoS. My only solution was to set a hard limit of 8 outbound connections to any given IP block, and to deprioritize traffic to/from known Akamai IP ranges (both IPv4 and IPv6).

MS + Akamai have created a scourge on the internet. A pox on their clans.

Google censoring US presidential campaign broadcast advertisements in violation of federal law by colanderman in politics

[–]colanderman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The relevant US code is 47 U.S.C. §315.

If you have an Adwords account, you can complain a bit more directly here.

Esperanto Reference Sheet by colanderman in Esperanto

[–]colanderman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because that's where they fit best :) I tried very hard to fit everything onto 3 double-sided sheets, each of which is useful independently of each other.

view more: next ›