....like putting a needle in a voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in the death of a person it represents.

>I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.

FIY, I just intentionally put a needle through your voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in your untimely death.

You might want to report me for attempted murder, and find out the defense between how our legal system actually works, and how you wish it worked.

If you're still reading this, I'm willing to repeat the above real world action of stabbing your voodoo doll as many times as it is necessary for it to work, in the presence of witnesses.

You're welcome.

>And if you think this is bad

This is not just bad, it's insane.

I'm not going to switch to another subject (conspiracy charges).

One little trick human rights advocates don't want you to know about!

/s

Now pray tell why Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, but 1 billion Muslims aren't.

They're in the same "group", right?

They have "safehouses" (mosques), "radical zines" (Quran), organized leadership (imams), regular gatherings, shared goals, group chats, and so on.

Clearly the entirety of 1B Muslims "conspired" to murder people on 9/11 and should all face harsh punishment "to send a message".

That's not at all absurd, isn't it?

Time to pull out my Acer Aspire from 2006, and make something with it :)

Also: what a blast from the past to see Kyodai mahjongg on Andrei's desktop in last year's challenge <3

>take an action in the real world (not a crime)

>it's a crime

You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes.

"Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!"

By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime.

I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.

Thank you for putting it together.

Oh yes, how could we have forgotten the crucial detail that every single person in the group had their hands on the trigger.

Wait, that's because it didn't happen.

One individual fired their weapon. (And whether that's a murder is very questionable, but let's set that aside).

Nobody else should've been facing prosecution in this case.

A single individual did.

What you're calling for is collective punishment (a war crime in Geneva convention), and guilt by association (a perversion of justice).

Kindly, abscond and desist.

>it is still a crime

Pardon me, but effin what?

Ah yes. There's a word for it.

You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes.

Good job, making Orwell proud.

Sure. My Fuji X100 is ready to shoot in about a second after a battery swap.

That's the thing about this idea. It doesn't work.

The title is misleading too. No actual 3D prints have been reinforced.

If the title said "an idea", making it clear that is not anything that has ever worked for anyone yet, it'd be a different matter.

>If my prints break, it's at the layer lines

Then print with 100% infill.

>This work may be a stepping stone, an easy way to reinforce prints

Printing with more infill is an easy way to reinforce prints.

Orienting your piece well on the build plate to take advantage of the anisotropy goes a long way too.

This problem already has an easy solution, and that's before you get into the more complicated ones (like nonplanar extrusion).

This is idea isn't solving the problem of prints being weak in general. It's an idea about (potentially, maybe, if someone else makes it work, if it's even possible ) saving material and printing time.

It wouldn't give you prints that are stronger than those printed with 100% infill even if worked.

Took a few hours while I was trying to understand what exactly iroh is doing.

It was good to refresh some things in memory along the way, and learn some too :)

(Or, in so many words: an alternative for dynamic DNS without a centralized/hierarchical lookup infrastructure that punches through NATs without all the associated hassle).

I.e., the problem is "communicate directly with a node on the Internet by its unique ID".

The big question is: what do you solve that Kademlia (BitTorrent) doesn't?

Problem history goes like this:

* MAC addresses were made to both identify and address nodes on the Ethernet. They're unique and tied to nodes on a hardware level.

But they didn't facilitate routing between several Ethernet networks.

Linking several Ethernet networks into one big net through an arbitrary topology of hierarchies of routers, with 1980s commodity hardware was a challenge.

Without any structure in the MAC address itself, the address alone wasn't telling anything about where it's going to.

It is, in fact, not an address at all, as much as it is an identifier .

Side note: after writing this sentence, I double checked Wikipedia to make sure I'm not forgetting anything, and lo and behold, IEEE agrees with what I wrote! They're officially called EUIs now (extended unique identifiers), not addresses.

Analogy: MAC is like a person's SSN. It doesn't tell anyone about where that person is.

You can use it to give mail to the right person when you know the SSNs of everyone in the room.

* IP addresses were made to address nodes on the Internet in a simple way.

They are actual addresses, semantically, with different parts telling which sub-network to route to.

It worked OK when the net was small and relatively static.

As the net grew, the fact that IP addresses were not made to identify nodes became a problem.

As in: nothing in IP tells you what is attached to that address. And if you are on the net, your IP address may (and often will) change after a reboot.

As an analogy: IP is the street address.

It's good enough to mail specific people only when everyone lives alone in their own house and doesn't travel.

When they do, they have to give you the address of their hotel. If they don't do that, you can't reach them.

* DNS was made, in part, to solve that problem (and allow human-readable addresses). But it introduced quite a few others.

The list is pretty long, but a few are:

* Reliance on the bureaucracy of registrars / centralization (and having to pay a fee for a domain name)

* Complex setup

* High propagation latency (hours to days)

DNS was made to facilitate communication for the client reaching out to a server; centralization is inherent in design choices, as are some assumptions.

Like the assumption that the server isn't changing IP addresses too much, and that the people running the server have some control over that.

DNS propagation time being a quarter hour to several days long isn't a huge problem with that assumption. You paid for a static IP block anyway to run your site, right?

DNS was a step back from the decentralized nature of the Internet, heavily discouraging hosting on your own machines.

As an analogy: to make things simpler, you can now send mail to "Pepsico, Inc." without specifying an address at all, because the postal service maintains an address book where anyone can get listed, for a fee.

You still have no way to reach your friend after they moved.

* Dynamic DNS services only partially addressed this problem, being a bolt-on solution that puts you at the mercy of a dynamic DNS service. Which may or may not be free, and is outside your control.

(Self hosting your own dynamic DNS infrastructure is not fun).

Analogy: your friend goes out of the way to put "YourFriend, Inc" in the postal service's address book, and make sure to keep their address up to date.

* IPv4 addresses eventually introduced another problem which DNS alone doesn't solve.

There are too few of them.

Hence, NAT.

That's to say, an IPv4 failed in doing the one thing it was still doing: addressing.

It only became a partial address. In practice, (IP + port number) would be a working address, so with Port Forwarding you could host things on your network-attached computing device.

Analogy: the addresses are missing names of the people.

As apartment complexes replace single-person homes, the best you can do is specify apartment number along with the address.

The postal service ignores it, but the apartment complex management will (hopefully) put your letter into the right mailbox.

* This, of course, breaks Dynamic DNS as a solution if the node moves between networks.

You're generally not in control of port forwarding. And the port number is not a part of the IP address, so it isn't in DNS.²

Analogy: your friend is again unreachable, because they can't include their room number in the address book.

They stay in room #80, but it's reserved for the management in most hotels.

* IPv6 solved the problem of "not enough IP addresses", but not really.

IPv4 and NAT are still there; IPv6 adoption stalled at less than 50% worldwide².

Habits die hard. NAT is the poor man's firewall (and some folks love NAT so much, they made NAT for IPv6³).

Analogy: USPS rolls out a new address format, where each piece of furniture in each room in every apartment of every building is addressable.

Your friend can get their address in that format from their hotel's management when they travel within the US. Usually.

In China, they don't do that.

* VPNs "solve" the problem by having everyone connect to a central node, at which point it's just like Ethernet.

Aside from scale limitations, it's no different from any other client-server architecture; nodes need to communicate via a common third node on the Net.

Analogy: the postal service has "return to sender" envelopes that don't require you to fill out the address at all.

How it works (and why you can "return to sender", but not mail them directly) is beyond you⁴.

You don't know, and you don't care.

To communicate, you and your friends simply address all mail to Joe, your mutual friend.

On the letter head, you specify the addressee by name.

Joe sorts it all out, and puts all mail addressed to you into the "return to sender" envelope.

* NAT hole punching is using an intermediary to which both nodes reach to exchange the "return to sender" infusion, then using it while it lasts.

Analogy: instead of having Joe forward mail from friends, you all simply write Joe each day, and he sends copies of the other person's "return to sender" envelope in response.

Now you have a "return to sender" which goes you your friend (and vice versa), so you can write to each other directly.

* Peer-to-peer networks (Kademlia, Gnutella, etc) that emerged in the early 2000s have worked out an entirely different (to DNS) approach to identifying and addressing nodes, generally termed DHT (distributed hash table).

Instead of using a centralized/hierarchical/federated lookup table to do

    (node name, DNS server address) →  node address 

    peer address → peer ID
    (query ID, peer address) → list of [next peer address]

This enabled O(long n) lookup convergence.

This solves many problems, but in particular, facilitated a distributed key-value store that doesn't rely on hierarchy/federation.

The node ID in a Kademlia network stochastically encodes routing information.

It's a key-value store where the node ID tells you something about the keys the node can provide value for.

Where IP has a rigid structure and reliance on subnet mask hierarchy (the first X bits say something), each Kademlia node is a router which stores information in a flexible (X bits of the address may something, but not any specific ones).

In short, Kademlia already solved the "MAC address on the Internet" problem in a decentralized way.

* This alone may still leave the problem of NAT hole punching for legacy networks.

Reminder, the entire problem amounts to having the nodes reach some other node (for the NAT router to open a port, i.e. create a valid "return to sender" address), and for that node to store/propagate that return address to other nodes.

But any node in a decentralized peer-to-peer system can do that.

NATs weren't obstacles to Kademlia more than a decade ago (see: libcage⁵).

* Iroh offers Kademlia⁶ as an option to retrieve the

     (Node ID → address)

QUESTION:

What problem does Iroh solve that Kademlia (in particular, libcage implementation) doesn't?

My current understanding is that Iroh is just Kademlia with extra steps.

Help me out here :)

______

¹https://www.infoblox.com/blog/ipv6-coe/you-thought-there-was...

²https://dnsmadeeasy.com/resources/the-state-of-ipv6-adoption...

³https://serverfault.com/questions/940476/my-dns-record-can-o...

⁴Turns out, it's simple: hotel management puts their a green sticker on the return address for the mail you send out, so when they get responses with a green sticker, they give them to you.

They remove the sticker, so you never know it was there, and they pick colors at random each time — whatever is left in the pile.

⁵https://github.com/ytakano/libcage

⁶pkarr uses mainlineDHT, which is a flavor of Kademlia (also used in BitTorrent, among others).

https://www.cockos.com/licecap/

So, nothing to show.

Next.

The same party that promotes distrust in the government (that is justified by the abuse the same party does when in power).

Amazing, innit.

Who dictates the "should”?

The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.

Software makers treat UIs the way auto makers treat paint and body styling.

Citation needed for "quite a few in the hands of kids".

What kind of kids get to hold very specific communication devices that Hezbollah leadership uses?

I smell bullshit.

>Terrorism by definition.

Says the person who's never read the definition.

You can call the op that targets military leadership whatever you want, but the mere fact of military leadership being targeted makes it not terrorism BY DEFINITION.