Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | grepfru_it's commentslogin

Great for small networks. Once bad actors find it, it will be attacked. See gnutella as the case study on unsupervised peer to peer networks

I just read gnutella page on Wikipedia, no mention of bad actors

I take it you never got a mislabeled mp3 of Bill Clinton advertising online poker.

> Steam and Proton work perfectly

I am a hardcore DayZ player. DayZ does not work on Proton[0]. I cannot use Linux as my main gaming platform. Battlefield 6 does not work. Latest Call of Duty does not work. You can talk about voting with your wallet, but when millions of people are buying the game, your one non-vote means nothing.

So either you punish yourself and refuse to play with friends, or you punish yourself and install windows. It’s a damned situation regardless of your choice

[0] point me to as many compatibility databases as you want, the game will not start on my vanilla Ubuntu build


This is really just a subset of competitive shooters. Arc Raiders, The Finals, Hunt Showdown, Halo Infinite all play fine.

I have a Windows drive for Battlefield but I stopped booting into it after interest in the game waned.

Playing on console is also an option. Most games allow you to alternate between keyboard/mouse and controller. Discord works fine, and every game is cross-play.


Oh ok. I’ll just stop playing my favorite games

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you, but don't assume everyone values DayZ over control of their system.

No but I am highlighting why it work for millions of other people as well.

Sounds like it might be an issue with your setup, considering that other people have no problems running it. Hard to tell what the problem is, but definitely a frustrating situation.

this is why a lot of people run arch and why valve based steamOS on arch instead of debian as the previous version was, you need a newer kernel and other packages to really play games on linux with the least friction possible

thats not a kernel issue its an anti cheat issue. No kernel except the windows kernel is going to allow him to play battlefield and cod.

Isn't call of duty the game where Nikki Minaj shoots the cat from the Simpsons? I think I'll pass.

That’s Fortnite and while you can pass, I don’t want to pass.. I want to play it!

A plastic water bottle isn’t triggering a tsa pre check metal detector. I’m totally doing this next trip

They could theoretically revoke precheck for doing this, but my guess is they won't because it is a believable accident (just like people leave them in their bag all the time) and given that the sign warning about firearms mentions that even that is just a five year suspension, not permanent, my guess is they wouldn't even bother for an harmless item.

I've never done that yet I've never had any trouble finding water past security or even on a plane?!

Airport prices in the UK for recreational travel work like so:

Flight from London to Barcelona: £16

Bottle of water past security: £5

Train to airport: £26

Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7

A person who wants to get the advertised flight at the advertised price has to be very careful.


On the other hand, one can also question if the £16 cost for the flight makes any sense. A more correct price would be £500. It's about time that the airlines pay the same taxes for fuel as everyone else.

What is the correct cost for a flight leaving in 3 hours with an empty seat? What is the correct cost for a scheduled flight leaving in 2 months with no seats sold yet?

Tickets aren't the same price for everyone, and planes fill to variable levels. Plus there are addons like luggage fees and beverages that have a huge markup. What is the best way to solve for that?

Besides, it averages something like 53L of fuel/passenger to make that trip. Hardly necessitating £500.


You can do whatever calculations and speculations you want, but the fact is that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.

Another thing with flying is that it is so easy to go long distances as it takes limited time. A trip London-Barcelona is a 1.5-2 day trip one-way by car. You think twice before doing that. An intercontinental trip London-Bangkok is impossible by car, but creates more CO2 than all energy one person uses in a year (heating, cooking, going by car to work etc). Dirt cheap and in the blink of an eye.


> that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.

What a weird rule. In the US they do.

Although some of that might go back to attempts made early in aviation to handle the import taxes of airplanes landing with a half full gas tank.


If you look into the details, in the US, aviation fuel is taxed very low and for international flights not taxed at all.

"Kerosene-based jet fuel used for commercial aviation (transporting persons or property for hire) is taxed at a reduced rate of 4.4 cents per gallon." [0] That is $0.044 per galon.

For cars the tax is between $0.31-$0.74 per gallon depending on state + federal tax of $0.184 so in total somewhere between $0.494-$0.924.

That means aviation fuel is taxed 1/10-1/20 of what car fuel is taxed. So in essence aviation fuel is barely taxed.

For international flights it is tax free: "The tax code provides statutory exemptions that result in zero or near-zero tax liability for specific fuel uses. Exemptions generally apply to fuel used in foreign international flights, military aircraft, governmental entities, farming, or by nonprofit educational organizations." [0]

[0] https://legalclarity.org/federal-jet-fuel-tax-rates-exemptio...


I agree. A mandated minimal price per km.

> Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7

To be fair, I entirely understand the absolute necessity for this.

The reason for its introduction is before hand the PHVs (Uber etc.) of this world would, instead of using the car parks, go up to the drop-off area and wait there.

Because there was no charge and no penalty, what they would do is drop off a passenger and then sit there waiting for their next job to ping on their screen.

This became a particular problem at Heathrow T5 where the drop off area is relatively tiny.

The result would be that at busy hours, private individuals attempting to drop off their friends and family would be unable to find space and end-up double-parking and causing safety hazards.

For a while they tried to use airport Police to enforce it, but the volume of PHVs was just far too great. Hence the cameras, charges and penalties were introduced.

It should also be noted that at Heathrow, if you do not want to pay the £7, you can instead drop people off for free at the Long Term Car park and they can get the shuttle bus back to the terminal.


Rather than charge everyone £7 or more for a drop off, wouldn't it make more sense to charge the people abusing it an absurd amount? I'd much rather see a £25 fee after 90 seconds and an additional £125 fee after 5 minutes than £7 for 30 seconds.

It seems less about making things more efficient and more about just squeezing a little bit out of money out of everyone.


Recently parked in a Spanish airport carpark that worked similar to this.

First few minutes free, lower tariffs for 5-10 mins (or maybe fixed charge at those limits?), then like 1 euro per minute after that.


That'd be a lot of surveillance and bookkeeping.

In San Francisco we have toll tags called FasTrak. You can pay for parking at the airport with it. Of course, there, it's just the normal, pretty high airport parking rates, but there's no reason you couldn't use such a tag for enforcing quick free drop offs and pickups with exactly that much precision. Enter the drop/pickup area with your toll tag, if you're out in 3 minutes, no charge. 5 minutes, $4, and if longer than that, $20/hour or whatever. It's not like computers mind doing that math.

Price of water from water fountain (to be found on basically any western airport and most non-western I've ever been to) - 0.

I get your approach, but say where we live (Switzerland) if you have something not tightly around your body like a fleece jacket, you have to take it off and put it through scanner, this is default. Sometimes they still ask me to go down to t-shirt even if its obvious I don't have anything in pockets.

Not worth the hassle for something that is mostly free and probably healthier compared to plastic bottles stored god knows where and how long. I'd imagine if they catch you, you are going for more detailed inspection since its obvious you didn't forget 1kg bottle in clothing you wear by accident.


Tangential, but given the myriad externalities of air transport, such low fares for flying are deeply unethical and a perverse incentive that we are going to need to address one day.

Take an empty, open water bottle through security and then fill it up at the free water fountains!

There is often no free water.

I've been all over the USA, continental Europe, and Japan, and there have always been water fountains. Granted, I've never been to one of the "don't drink the tap water" countries.

I just had this experience at CDG, at the AA gate. I really don't know why people seem to think this is a made up problem. You may have found drinkable water at your gate, but airports are big, and your experience is not universal.

Correct, I pay for it for you, every April 15th.

Which airports?

Even in your own car dropping off your friends or family at a UK airport (at least the London ones) requires paying a £6 fee now. Just to get to the dropoff area, even for 30 seconds as you say.

But hey, at least the luggage carts are free…


In Edinburgh the (small, we often need 2) luggage carts are now £2.

At Edinburgh airport, you can park at the Park and Ride nearby but it costs a tenner to get from there to the airport - a distance you could walk in about 20 minutes.

Right, but what do you think the alternative is? There is limited space close to the entrance of the terminal, it has to be rationed somehow. Also what happens in practice is people take advantage. A trust-based 30s wouldn't work. Even with the current fees you can hang around Heathrow drop off and see the police having to move people along, check unatended cars, etc.

There's limited space everywhere. It is rationed by people not wanting to be there. There's limited space at the baggage claim but nobody is charging you to be at the baggage claim.

You think people don't want to drop off at the airport? There's literally a multi storey full of short term parking at every Heathrow terminal. They wouldn't fit in the drop off area at all.

You are charged to be at the baggage claim. The airline pays it on your behalf, from your fare.


you are not charged to be at the baggage claim

If you can find a way to utilize the baggage claim services without paying someone at some point I'd love to hear it.

Just because you're not handing someone your card as you walk up to it doesn't mean you're not paying for it.


nevertheless you are not charged to be at the baggage claim. You can stand there as long as you want to, and your bank balance doesn't decrease.

Baggage claim being run by a charity, obviously.

> nobody is charging you to be at the baggage claim

Not yet.


The alternative is not charging. JFK somehow manages. Yes there's traffic, but it keeps slowly moving.

JFK is pure hell compared to Heathrow, never mind to an actually well-run airport. I'll stick to paying for my externalities.

I have three major airports in reasonable driving distance. None of them charge money to pick up or drop off at the terminal. It works fine.

And what's your experience of other world airports? Have you been to Heathrow? What about somewhere like Changi? It's not just the dropoff that sucks at JFK.

Public realm is almost universally terrible in America because Americans rarely leave and don't experience anything better. It's bad, actually, to wait in traffic for a large portion of your life.

See also: the revolt over NYC congestion pricing. The congestion fee in Manhattan should be $50 or more.


I've only transited through Heathrow, I haven't tried the driving experience there. I have tried it in various other airports in Europe and China. None of them charged money to drive up to the terminal either and they were all fine too.

Sometimes the American experience isn't different from the rest of the world and it's your experience that's unusual, you know.


You understand that e.g. in Chinese cities they restrict car ownership and you have to enter a lottery/bidding system to get valid plates. Cars are a luxury. European cities have their own restrictions and discouragements. Rationing happens in many ways.

I have still never experienced an airport with pick-up/drop-off traffic as bad as JFK, and I've travelled to almost every country in Europe, plenty of countries in Asia, and Canada. Maybe South America can beat it though, TBD.


That's probably a "JFK is unusually bad" thing, not an "everything is terrible in America and those idiot Americans don't know any better because they never travel" thing. I haven't been driven to JFK since 2001 and I don't remember what it was like then, but driving anywhere around NYC requires great patience.

London is worse _overall_ for traffic than NYC, so I don't think it's that. I like America and Americans, but it's a fact that they don't travel much. JFK is not just bad for drop-off, it's chaos and run-down in general.

Many of us travel internationally quite a bit. And again, this thing you think is uniquely American very much is not.

Yeah it’s got out and out criminal at this point. Not sure why we should accept a £6.40 charge to drop someone or collect someone from an airport when that’s the actual function and necessity of using an airport. I got charged £100 at COUNCIL OWNED Manchester airport for picking up a friend who accidentally had put themselves in the drop off zone rather than the collect zone. Just completely vile and disgusting corporatism at every single level.

Are you saying they fined you for picking someone up in the drop off area? If so that's pretty wild. It's all just traffic at the end of the day.

Yes. They have paid sneaks standing around and the second you do something like that they radio to the people who control the barriers so you can’t get out without paying it. Just completely f*cked state of affairs.

https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/dro...

“ 1.3 Breach of these terms and conditions may result in Parking Charges up to £100. An additional fee of up to £70 may be applied for the costs of debt recovery.

9.1 Drop-off only: The Drop Off Zone may only be used to drop-off passengers and not for pick-up. There are separate designated areas for the pick-up of passengers. Use of the Drop Off Zone for any other purpose will result in the issuance of a Parking Charge.


I do that all the time in certain airports when the drop off is essentially empty with 0 line but pickup is a half mile row of cars.

Kinda antisocial. If everyone acted like you the drop off would be clogged as well and some people would miss their flights.

The drop off is frequently clogged anyway so you have to plan for that. Where I'm at the airport will advise the use of the opposite one if things back up. Early in the morning the departures sign will suggest using arrivals if you see traffic backing up and vice versa in the evening.

Shhhhh

When people say "water" here I have to assume they mean "vodka". Otherwise you can just bring an empty bottle and fill it on the other side. It's the toiletries that pose a problem.

I've been in many airports where there is no water on the other side of the X-ray. At KLIA and DPS they have none to buy even, and then you have to fight for it on the plane. At CDG you have to buy it, no water fountain. It's extremely aggravating.

I’ve definitely found free water fountains at CDG.

Now, one of the Bucharest airports literally does not have potable tap water. Their well, being under an airport and all, is contaminated. By email, they did inform me that the water is microbiologically fine. Unsure of their pipe to the municipal system was been built out.


Probably a issue with PFAS contamination. Stuff was used in firefighting water, and has contaminated just about every airport and the surrounding area's groundwater, all over the world. So while microbiologically safe, it has PFAS issues.

Either that or hydrocarbons from leaks over several decades or deicing fluid easily infiltrating their wells, or all!

Or they don’t test it and therefore can’t certify it but I did take a swig and immediately spat it out.


Well none at the AA gates, just had to buy it at Relay at usurious prices.

Disappointingly, in my case it's usually just water. I'm walking towards security with my bottle, I can either slip it in my pocket or put it in a bin. Not throwing it away saves a bit of time and quickly becomes the default choice.

Depending on the airport and terminal (e.g. shitholes like Frankfurt, especially terminal 2), filling it on the other side might mean a washbasin in a stinky toilet because they'd rather you buy overpriced bottled water. And many airports that do have at least water fountains only have some that seem deliberately designed to prevent you from using them to fill any reasonably sized bottle.

Also, don't count on security not throwing away your empty water bottle anyway just because they can.


Wow, it's refreshing to read that we maybe we don't have it the worst in the US, right here amongst everyone's beefs with TSA. Every airport domestically I've ever flown to has not just water fountains, but the convenient bottle-fillers (usually connected to the normal fountains). I always just bring an empty plain disposable plastic bottle, for its light weight, and security never bats an eye at it.

Some airports charge money for water after security.

Others disallow even empty bottles at security screening


> Others disallow even empty bottles at security screening

I haven't encountered this. Could you name some?


Nobody disallows empty bottles through security, that's a lie.

I have had an empty water bottle thrown away once so it's not a lie even if it might not be universal.

I can also make up fake stories.

"Someone threw this away once" is not the same as "banned at security."

It’s open source bro, just read the code if you don’t trust it.

/s

That said I am intimately familiar with the code and it’s pretty well designed with safety in mind. Plus your vehicle has safety parameters that limits the ability for the software to do something insane. That said there are a few stories of open pilot running into a curb, hitting a car in the neighboring lane, etc


Comma is anal about safety. Few years ago they went as far as to ban anyone tinkering with Ford trucks/vans via park assist commands since those had unlimited steeeing torque/angle (and speed spoofing).


Here's some context for why those park assist commands are so dangerous. https://blog.comma.ai/safer-control-of-steering/


Holy fuck, didn't expect reply from the man himself. First thank you for Open pilot, it's truly an amazing project, I've been user since 2019. Second, comment re Ford was not to criticise you but to underscore that Comma and you personally take safety very seriously.

New Toyotas are encrypted and will likely not be supported.


2025 bZ4X is just the 2022 with some tweaks. Definitely does not have encrypted CAN bus. Maybe the 2026 bZ has it encrypted.


2023+ bZ4x has an enhanced version of TSK (security/encryption) and is not supported as a result.


Depends on the car. Some require to intercept at the canbus gateway. I could recommend an installer


CAN-FD, CAN-XL, Encrypted Canbus, automotive Ethernet, and flexray are on the way


Flexray is supported only on Audi on a specific Flexray-canbus integration board that was just end of lifed and Comma has no desire to support other boards. It was a proof of concept for anyone wishing to implement the same


It’s an option in open pilot, but not one that defaults to on


I switched to Linux. It was great! Then I got some contract work with Redhat. It was great! I completed the contract and provided a summary of my work in a .odt file I wrote on Fedora using LibreOffice. Suddenly it was not great! The team at RedHat said they could not open my file. That’s odd, I’m using their OS. Ok I’ll send the file in LibreOffice’s conversion to Word 2003 format. They opened the file and they said the formatting was off. They said can you just save it in Word and send it to us? I informed them I was using their operating system. They didn’t respond. I sent another message and said I could move to a different computer. Suddenly it was great again! I got paid handsomely for that work, but I had to use Windows.

This is why I do not believe you can switch to Linux. Because the world still runs on Microsoft. It was not until office for Mac reached feature parity (with office for Windows) when companies seriously considered macOS. Currently office for the web has not reached that parity. So the world is still smiling at Linux the same way you would at your 9 year old nephew saying “aww how cute” and then going back to the real world


When you create LibreOffice documents and you want to send them to others, which may not be LibreOffice users, the normal procedure is to export your documents as PDF files, which ensures that anyone can use them.

Less frequently, you may want to export your documents to MS formats, if you want them to be editable, but that is much less foolproof than exporting to PDF.

I have worked for many years in companies where almost everybody was using MS Office, while I preferred to use LibreOffice (nowadays Excel remains better than any alternative, but I actually prefer LibreOffice Write to MS Word, because I think that the latter has regressed dramatically during the last 2 decades). Despite that, my coworkers were not even aware that I was using LibreOffice, as all the documentation generated by me was in PDF format.

Product documentation in any serious company should be in PDF format anyway, not in word processor formats that cannot be used by anyone who does not have an appropriate editor or viewer. Even using MS Office is not a guarantee that you can use any MS Office document file, as I have seen cases when recent MS Office versions could not open some ancient MS Office files, which could be opened by other tools, e.g. they could be imported in LibreOffice.


PDF is THE choice for cross-platform presentation and printing, but a real PITA for collaboration, funny enough one of the places where the web version of Word is pretty decent. A lot of industries live in Word/Office, and "generate PDF" is a pretty small part of their workflow. Also remember that printing to PDF without an expensive purchase was not a thing for many decades; I've only stopped using the Win2PDF license I bought 25 years ago on my most recent computers!


Not that I don't believe you, but something feels off...

> conversion to Word 2003 format

That's a twenty year old almost-dead binary format. Why would you do that instead of .docx? Or just a PDF.

> They opened the file and they said the formatting was off.

Who cares about formatting on a work summary? Did it have something more interesting than you can put in .rtf?

> not until office for Mac reached feature parity

It hasn't. There's still a difference in feature support.


People often will use .doc rather than .docx when they’re trying to convert to a format that non-Word apps are more likely to be able to parse.

And bad formatting can result in an almost unreadable document. For example all bullet levels becoming the same, which is an example of something I’ve seen before.

None of this seems off to me.


It's the opposite. .doc was never fully reverse engineered properly, but .docx is way easier to handle and was for quite a while.


Yeah, I believe you're right.


> That's a twenty year old almost-dead binary format.

I assume its an old story as recent version of MS Office can read ODF formats.


Why on earth would you not just send a PDF? LibreOffice even has a handy button just for exporting directly to PDF. Does your customer need to edit your work summary for some odd reason?


I remember looking into the spec of the... I think it was the DWARF debug info format, mostly just out of curiosity. Also out of curiosity, I checked the PDF metadata. Creator: Microsoft Word. Curious.


.odt mostly works fine. Its the standard for editable files on gov.uk and it goes entirely unnoticed by most people so MS Word users presumably are able to open them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: