No idea, it should be under dev/lang where other lisps are, but Stefan Haubenthal is an accomplished software packager so perhaps there's a good reason.
On average about 100 (TCP) requests hit my home router per minute doing various probing and scanning. Lots of checking for the telnet port obviously. Sometimes you can see a swarm of entirely different IPs scanning the full port range (probing the ports one-by-one).
You'll see a lot of deepfield, censys-scanner, visionheight.com, shadowserver.io, etc., but also the usual suspects of Chinese or Russian IPs.
With OpenWRT I use something like this: `tcpdump -i pppoe-wan 'inbound and tcp[tcpflags] & (tcp-syn|tcp-ack) == tcp-syn'`, or alternatively `tcpdump -i pppoe-wan 'inbound and tcp[tcpflags] & (tcp-syn|tcp-ack) == tcp-syn and not port 44000'`, if we have some torrent client running (e.g. here at port 44000) which would mess up the result. I'm not sure it's the best way to handle this, but it's definitely enlightening what bounces off on the router.
The easiest way to deal with the usual suspects is to just block the entire countries network range(s). There really is no reason they should be connecting to your home router anyway, and you lose nothing from blocking them.
Sure their packets will still hit your router, but if they are dropped immediately at least you're not wasting a syn-ack on them.
> The easiest way to deal with the usual suspects is to just block the entire countries network range(s).
Keep in mind that this should be paired with an ASN blacklist - MaxMind also has an ASN mmdb for convenience - because IP address to country maps are almost entirely self-declared[0].
For example, Tencent (AS132203), which you almost certainly want to block, has ranges in 73 different countries per [1].
I, temporarly, banned some ip range.
I didn't find a source for pinpointing countries; though I am interested. Could you point me to some sources which, deterministically, resolve to some countries? To my knowledge you can not reliably identify countries by ip since this would be dependent on DNS servers. Though I am just a application programmer!
Your router doesn't care about their DNS settings. IP addresses are very easy to tie back to countries. The reason they say it's not reliable is because it's trivial to spoof the country, but even so, a lot of attackers don't even bother. It's sort of like the Nigerian prince scam calls: if you're wise enough to block Russia, you're not worth their time.
Your firewall vendor should supply you with country lists, just select the known bad ones and drop their traffic. If you have a consumer grade router, you will probably have to configure the blocklists manually.
> The reason they say it's not reliable is because it's trivial to spoof the country
ISPs sometimes do trade IPv4 blocks and countries to which it belongs do change occasionally. That can become a problem if you were like literally Netflix and someone few nation states over started an ISP.
Unless you're serving something, you should probably drop all incoming requests. If you are serving something, the US is a pretty big market to lock yourself out of.
I'm happy to unblock China from accessing my website, once China does something about the millions of daily hack attempts originating from that country.
I have ubiquity UniFi for this reason (amongst others). OpenWRT is a good choice as well. Most home router software is such junk, might as well leave the door open..
> The common advice now is to only use CSS that is supported in the last two major versions of each major browser.
Browsers seem to release a major new version like every 2 weeks now. So this statement does no longer hold true. You'll have a lot of users with broken results, if you follow that advise (everyone who uses a ESR or is otherwise limited with updates and behind a month)
I'd say for safety one should target the browsers of the last 4 years at least. You easily can write new CSS —or Javascript— and then use a conversion during deployment to target the lower standards. That's more important for Javascript than for CSS though. If only half of the sites would deploy with `babel` and with some compatibility in mind 80% less of the web would be broken for users with older browsers.
> Browsers seem to release a major new version like every 2 weeks now. So this statement does no longer hold true. You'll have a lot of users with broken results, if you follow that advise (everyone who uses a ESR or is otherwise limited with updates and behind a month)
Nope.
Safari only releases a major version once a year, so by only using features that are available in the last two major versions of each major browser, you're already waiting at least 2 years.
> I'd say for safety one should target the browsers of the last 4 years at least.
No.
Supporting browsers that old incentivises users not to update, which causes them to be insecure.
Better they know that something is broken so they have a greater incentive to update.
Goto (as in "Go to") and Goto (as in the romaji version of one of 後藤, 五藤, 五島, …) is simple two things that sound/look the same when written in ASCII w/o spaces. :)
where the first character means "behind" or "back" and the second character refers to wisteria vines.
(The first character is familiar to some of the martial arts practitioners, because it has an alternative pronunciation, "kō" instead of "go", which is used in the expression "kō-kutsu-shitsu", which is normally abbreviated to "kō-kutsu", and which means "with the back knee bent".)
The last name "Goto" in this case is actually read Gotou (ごとう), but romanization methods are their own flamewar. There's much less emphasis put on the "go" part than the "tou", so pronunciation doesn't actually sound anything like the English word "goto" at all.
Imagine the spanish word gato. Now elongate the "to", and change the ga to go, and you're close.
`ansiweather` needs like ~6.28 MiB (measured with `/usr/bin/time -l` on OS X), but it's a bash script that invokes cURL, so there's certainly various overheads there too.
One probably could get this down way below ~1 MiB with a properly tuned straight executable written in C (best not to use any of the "modern" stuff like Rust and Go, their default binary sizes for outputting "Hello, world!\n" are already extreme :-) )
By default anything needs at least 532480 bytes RSS on OSX (I tested it with the most minimal C hello world), so that's a threshold one probably can't beat on OS X at least. We probably could kill that value on Amiga OS with the exact same functionality. :-)
On Linux you can bypass libc and use as little memory as you like. When you don't use libc and don't use dynamic loading there is no strict lower bound although you still start with a certain default stack size.
I always found it odd that there's only one single origin of life point or even just a single common ancestor considered in history. Shouldn't entirely new life develop all the time on earth? I mean the ingredients and building blocks are still there, the environmental situation still should work out, like availability of water, temperatures, etc. We should see a constant emergence of new life all the time. Why would that process stop, just because some other life already exists? Maybe we just can't detect this, because whatever new life happens to appear —more or less— resembles life that's already there.
I'd imagine the bar for becoming new life is much higher now, because it requires finding a niche that isn't already filled by an existing organism or requires being immediately competitive with existing life.
They're pretty sure the primordial environment was a hydrothermal vent in an anoxic high phosphorus soda lake with methane, ammonia, and UV exposure. Nowadays those lakes don't have the methane and ammonia, so that environment isn't there anymore. https://www.science.org/content/article/unusual-soda-lakes-m...
The surfaces of clay particles in these lakes have been dubbed "the primordial sandwich".
The early protocells were 'alive', they were self-replicating, but they required nutrients and metabolic processes that only existed near mineral surfaces and would starve if they drifted away. They had to evolve new enzymes to become 'free-living'.
So it looks like the LUCA was one of these early protocells with an incomplete metabolism.
> Shouldn't entirely new life develop all the time on earth?
It's possible OoL requires some exponentially unlikely step. We wouldn't realize that because of observer selection: had the step not occurred, we wouldn't be here to be thinking about it. There's a huge complexity gap between the stuff produced in OoL experiments and the simplest known life.
It's also possible OoL requires conditions that no longer exist on Earth, or that only existed in the early Earth (or wherever life got started in the Solar System). For example, if it depended on the existence of short lived radioactive isotopes or free ammonia.
>ike availability of water, temperatures, etc. We should see a constant emergence of new life all the time. Why would that process stop,
Anything that's so agreeable to abiogenesis that life might spontaneously manifest, is actually pretty tasty for things already alive. They swoop in and eat it before it gets started. So, I suspect that even what the article says isn't that they both arose in the same place, but in different places separated by distance, time, and/or environmental barriers.
Because the moment life first appears, it multiplies and fills all easily available niches, and any new life is outcompeted by the more evolved pre-existing organisms.
I may be a dumb layman, but that argument seems too tidy and absolute to me - wouldn’t it suggest, for example, that viruses could never appear because they’d be outcompeted by more advanced bacteria? Earth seems to have room for an incredible diversity of types of life.
Viruses are not newly appearing forms of life, they are co-depending on the already present forms of life and they reuse some of their machinery.
Viruses are the opposite of starting from zero, they start from a functional organism and stop existing if the base organism gets extinct.
However, reading other answers, it seems the great oxygenation event is an even stronger argument against basic life appearing again. They would get oxidised and die.
Nope. It would suggest that new viruses could not spontaneously appear from abiotic matter, because they'd be outcompeted by existing viruses. Which may well be true.
We don't know where exactly viruses came from, but one of the leading theories is actually that they are the descendants of bacteria which outcompeted other bacteria. When a parasitic bacterium sheds more and more of its own metabolic capabilities, because it's more efficient to steal those abilities from its host cell, it evolves in a way that looks more and more like a virus.
"More evolved" or "more advanced" in this case doesn't mean "bigger" or "more complex". You can say viruses are equally evolved as bacteria, meaning they've spent equally long being optimized for their ecological niche.
But the enviroments that have the easy/free energy that would give rise to life is almost always contaminated with life competing for and consuming that chemical energy.
It has to survive though in the sense that it has to live long enough for us to see it. If we think of life as "spontaneously" (roughly speaking) emerging from the right conditions reasonably rarely, it has to outcompete other existing life for some time. And then there's the chance that we might not recognize it as "new" at all.
A step further "novel" life (hence still simpler) made from the same raw materials as existing life would look exactly like decomposing existing life and be routinely scavenged for material.
It's probably unrelated to the Fermi Paradox. Life doesn't develop all the time on Earth largely because it's already developed. The conditions for that development are largely gone now, plus existing life easily outcompetes new life in general.
This tells us nothing about the probability of the development of new life in an environment that doesn't already have life.
The ingredients and building blocks aren’t there in the same way. Because life formed, those early ingredients are now transformed, as is the environment. This blocks new life of the type that formed 4 billion years ago from forming again.
Indeed, all species branch out from that one universal common ancestor that was the first free living successful cell.
Put another way: forming life isn’t easy at all. And once it forms it changes conditions to suit its continuation, not to allow new life to form.
Life is vastly faster than random chance at producing more life. So living things go fill niches faster than random chance can use those niches to produce new life.
The building blocks will be immediately consumed by existing life. And that's just one way in which the world is radically different from the one in which life arose.
And life may have arisen from a very low probability set of circumstances ... there's no reason to expect it to be happening all the time.
Probably this. How would we know what such 'proto-life' (perhaps even just some self-replicating soup of chemicals, no cell wall) would look like? Where to find it? How rare its occurence? Etc etc.
Scientists might not even recognise it if happened right in front of them.
I'd put my money on coming up with a more general definition of "life", and then looking for short(est) pathways from "soup of random chemicals" to "something in there that replicates (parts of) itself".
Doesn't need to look like life as we know it, as long as some elements of "self-organising structures, something being replicated" are there.
