1. Every action seems slower than Figma and Sketch-my main tool
2. Some short cuts didn't seem to to work, like how I can't copy and paste a canvas. It was hard for me to forego muscle memory
3. Is there a way to try it without signing up for an account? Like a sandbox? I tried to delete my account but because I logged in via Google and it requires me to enter a password (I don't know), I can't delete.
Not exactly P2P, but I think the fibre optic drones used in Russia/Ukraine could be effective for regaining internet access in Africa.
Those drones have 10km+ fibre optic cables stringing out the back. Fly it to a different country, hook up to a friendly wifi/cellular network, then pipe your general purpose internet traffic through the fibre optic cable.
This wouldn't work everywhere. But for small Africa countries with lots of land borders it might work. Especially if the border area had jungle or other low traffic terrain.
Before wireless came to my rural area, we used to joke about how the phone companies ran dialup over barbed wire. "Internet's down; deer must have broken the barbed wire again."
Imagine having a mesh of hundreds of fibre optic cables strewn across the border.
Many having wireless routers at their terminus to forward traffic to other cables. Other cables having vertices and graph-like structures so that they could tolerate cuts in individual lines.
The end result could be something quite authentic to ARPANET.
DIY mesh networks (I'm speaking of Wi-Fi, not Meshtastic, but even that has its place), isolated pirateboxes, dead drops, and (horror of horrors) going to the pub and talking to people. It's trivial for a government to make the first one illegal and relatively trivial to enforce it, but difficult in increasing magnitude for them to actually control the remainder.
Have WiFi mesh networks ever been proven to work at scale? The few experiments that I've seen seemed to be slow and unreliable. And in order to be of any real value, at least one of those mesh network nodes needs a connection to the real Internet.
Mesh networks like https://guifi.net have been reliably delivering internet longer than you have been a member of HN.
There are many mesh networks with Autonomous Systems Numbers, peering at internet exchanges, etc. You don't order 10Gbps ports at various IXPs if your community run network can't deliver that bandwidth usefully.
> You don't order 10Gbps ports at various IXPs if your community run network can't deliver that bandwidth usefully.
Well, to be fair....
- Membership of most IXPs is not that expensive and the smaller port sizes are not that expensive
- Many IXPs are moving to 10Gbps as the default port size (e.g. with a membership at LINX in London, you get your first default-size port for free, which is now 10Gbps at LINX).
- If you are running an eyeball network (i.e. xSP, WISP etc.) then you might as well just buy bare-minimum IP transit and save your money for your peering point memberships, since most of your traffic will be going to the CDNs etc. all of whom have open-peering policies at IXPs, so why pay more than you need to ?
- Moving to cynical-view territory, its a marketing expense ... become an IXP member, get a nice logo you can put on your website and give your salesdroids something to name-drop ....
> And in order to be of any real value, at least one of those mesh network nodes needs a connection to the real Internet.
I don't know what this means. If all of my family and friends are on a private network, and I'm serving my copy of Wikipedia, and all of us are sharing our books, movies, and music, we have a bulletin board, voice and video chat...
How did you get your copy of Wikipedia? How do you update your copy of Wikipedia?
How do you get your books, movies, and music? How do you get new ones?
Yes, it has real value as a fill-in-the-gap until you can reconnect to the real internet. Long term I guess it still has some value as a way to look at a static collection of things (plus content generated by people on the mesh), but the real internet is much more valuable.
the Internet Protocol, IP, is already peer to peer. Assign yourself an address (V6) and get a peer, assign them an address, plug in a cable, voila!
Get a switch and another computer and you have an Internet. Ok, we would generally call it an "intranet," but that's because -the- Internet with a capital I is specifically a net of intranets.
So, if you were to start an ISP, which is the proposal, you would buy an uplink to the rest of the Internet for your intranet that you just built, from another ISP or backbone provider.
But you don't have to do that, you could partner with another intranet, and have a separate Net. Similar to what happens in China actually.
My point is: the Internet is already peer to peer. You just have to use the technology. Thirty years ago every tech nerd knew how to start an ISP.
The only reason individuals don't do it as much anymore is because we want the ISP to lay dedicated cable for our connections, rather than just using the phone lines, and laying cable is really expensive.
But you could use phone or amateur radio (like the JS8 digital mode) if lower speeds are acceptable, or lay your own Ethernet or fiber if you're capable.
The only thing that makes today's Internet seem like it's not peer to peer is the investment needed to start an ISP with the performance modern consumers expect
IP is P2P, but a lot of the layers built on top of it are centralized, and very vulnerable to attack. DNS is hierarchical with 13 root name servers. Google is a private company, but if websearch ever goes offline, the utility of the Internet decreases dramatically. Some stupid percentage of webhosts are protected by Cloudflare; Cloudflare outages have taken large portions of the Internet offline. Same with AWS on the backend; when AWS has gone down, people find that a large number of the websites they depend upon go down too. Most people's consumer IPs are blocked off from the public Internet by their ISP and NAT.
Actually using an Internet based on IP addresses alone is ridiculously difficult. Quick, tell me how the IP protocol works using IP addresses alone! You can't type anything other than IP addresses into the address bar of your computer, and your browser can't make any secondary requests unless they're to a raw IP address. No using Google or Wikipedia unless you have their IP addresses memorized and have HOST file entries for all the secondary resources they request. You can't use HN to tell me; you need to find my computer's IP address and SSH in to me. Oh, and whatever certificate validation SSH does can't make any network requests to a DNS entry.
in a small network you just put the hostnames in /etc/hosts and you're done, or you set up a local DNS server. The GP asked about "making a p2p internet," and that's how it's done. Hostnames are not a hard problem.
Google Search is useless on a p2p internet. Why would you want to search the corporate network on your separate net? Doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't use the global DNS system in this scenario either, you can just set up your own -- DNS is hierarchical but there's no reason you cannot have your own roots, or just pass around hosts files like the old days, either on sneakernet or using another protocol
> You can't use HN to tell me
HN wouldn't be on my private "peer to peer" internet, it's on the regular internet. Set up a mirror or find a route to the regular one through any one of your PEERS.
I don't get it, I thought the GP wanted to know how to set up their own Internet, or thought that the Internet was centralized. It's not. Build your own network, be creative, replace DNS if you need to. The tech is there, it's well-established, well-tested, and we use it today for the regular internet.
The grandparent only needs to read some man-pages.
It's a closed network, we can just hardcode everyone's address.
> Google is a private company, but if websearch ever goes offline, the utility of the Internet decreases dramatically. Some stupid percentage of webhosts are protected by Cloudflare; Cloudflare outages have taken large portions of the Internet offline. Same with AWS on the backend; when AWS has gone down, people find that a large number of the websites they depend upon go down too. Most people's consumer IPs are blocked off from the public Internet by their ISP and NAT.
All of this is irrelevant on a private network. I don't think you understood the comment you were replying to. The Internet is a bunch of little internets mashed together. Instead of mashing your internet with the others, you can provide services internally. No, other people's websites will not necessarily be on it, but they will anyway, because you'll probably provide a tunnel out to the wider internet. Anyway, you already have the internet, use it like you always did. The internet police don't make you give up the internet if you set up your own network.
You may not be able to appreciate the value of a communication system without access to google (you can download Wikipedia and serve it yourself if you find it a useful tool and your connection to the wider internet is endangered.) I remember an internet without Google, and I liked it more. The only thing Google ever did that was interesting was pagerank, and pagerank, being not resilient at all, was completely obsoleted by SEO. Everything else they've done has been a result of taking advantage of when they controlled an important market (access to the wider resource of the internet) for a few years over a decade ago.
When the internet goes down, my home network doesn't become either ridiculously difficult or useless. It will without pause or much notice still serve dozens of terabytes of data to anyone I allow to connect to wireless, and allow us to communicate with each other.
No internet here, but I'm setting up Meshtastic nodes between me and my family so we can keep messaging when internet stops working, or power goes out (solar panels).
They'll get 99.99% of people, but not me. I only need it for an hour or so to communicate meeting points. After that it's an added luxury for whatever comes after. It's my contribution to the prepping of my family.
The way to do p2p communication without the Internet is to remove immediacy from it.
Old email servers were configured this way, they’d try to communicate the next time they got a connection.
For text it could be simple as encrypting and sending it to as many devices as you see until you get an ack back - something almost blockchain-like, but without the CPU and just signing.
Ack’d messages would be purged from ThePile and you could also expire them after a time. It’d be a few gigabytes perhaps, and could share diffs when you see another device.
I'm beginning to wonder if these investors are not just pumping AI because they are personally invested in Nvidia and this is a nice way to directly inject a couple of 100M into their cashflow.
Most likely it's some junior rep assigned to Sutskever's company after Ilya filled up an online "Contact Us for Pricing" form on the Nvidia website. /s
Health insurance company profits are capped as a percentage of claims paid. Higher costs for drugs and services means more profit for the insurance companies.
This project is one huge yak shave starting from that idea! I was trying to pick a company name in the AI space and thought it would be appropriate if it was generated by ML. I tried a few datasets for training, and using the Oxford English Dictionary led me here
(disclaimer: I work at a big tech firm, but I've had this opinion before working here)
I'm confused by the lengths people have gone through to "protect" themselves from internet giants while freely giving away their info to credit card companies, traditional retailers, small businesses. Credit card transaction data have been sold for years without most of us knowing about it. Small startups, boutique stores rarely have the security or data governance resources to ensure your data is stored and used properly. Data breaches are common even at large brick-and-mortar retailers.
Given the state of data security outside of big tech, my best option is to trust only big tech.
> I'm confused by the lengths people have gone through to "protect" themselves from internet giants while freely giving away their info to credit card companies, traditional retailers, small businesses.
You are invalidly generalizing. I try to eliminate all contact I have with the tech giants, and I do not have a credit card, I am at a privacy respecting bank (GLS Gemeinschaftsbank), and I use cash.
Additionally, by sharing your data with a company, you give that company power over yourself and others by enabling them with the knowledge they have over you. Considering this, it is less problematic to give access to data to a small company compared to a tech giant.
> You are invalidly generalizing. I try to eliminate all contact I have with the tech giants, and I do not have a credit card, I am at a privacy respecting bank (GLS Gemeinschaftsbank), and I use cash.
You do you, but I'm happy to get free airline tickets and other perks from using my credit card at the expense of....... having someone else know I bought a mechanical keyboard last month?
I respect your choice but I honestly do not understand why people go to such great lengths to hide mundane data. I'll tell you the color of my underwear for free, I don't care.
Maybe at the expense of buying that mechanical keyboard you thought you really wanted but actually you ended up purchasing because of continued, subtle advertising?
Assuming you have the income to support your spending habits, I don't see this as much of a risk? Occasionally buying the wrong thing for whatever mistaken reason is a fact of life. Live and learn.
I would be more worried about scams, bad investments, bigger purchases, or a pattern of impulse buying.
> You do you, but I'm happy to get free airline tickets and other perks from using my credit card at the expense of....... having someone else know I bought a mechanical keyboard last month?
That's not why you're getting free airline tickets. You're getting them because you're a) subsidized by people who carry a balance and b) pay higher prices on goods to make up for the merchant fees, while being partially subsidized by those people who pay with cash and aren't getting free flights.
I'm not hiding, I'm just not exposing myself. It's a matter of perspective.
More significantly, you are understating and trivializing the kind of information that many services force us to expose. If you share your buying history, that may reveal locations, your movements, your schedule, etc. What a set of data reveals is not up to the one the data is from, but the one analyzing it. For you it is mundande, for them it is enough.
> Credit card transaction data have been sold for years without most of us knowing about it.
In practice, yes, most of us are clueless. In theory, if you've seen one of these[1] (and if you're an American, you most certainly have) then you "know about it." The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act has a whole lot of room for improvement, but the single-page uniform privacy disclosure it brought to financial institutions is infinitely more consumer-friendly than 90 pages of 10pt grey legalese used by big tech.
I think you're thinking of a different threat model from these users. If you're concerned about breaches by malicious actors, then yes this defense makes sense.
However, if you're worried about data mined from tracking your personal behavior, which is what the users here are worried about, then it makes sense to spread your data out. Traditional stores are not going to send each other your transaction history to build a profile of interest and personality, and each store won't have a complete enough history or even the expertise to mine it.
>Traditional stores are not going to send each other your transaction history to build a profile of interest and personality, and each store won't have a complete enough history or even the expertise to mine it.
"Traditional" as in "before the age of Amazon"? They do, through store rewards cards. Harris Teeter knows what I have bought and has figured out what I only buy on sale, Target can identify pregnant women with stunning accuracy, and I'd be surprised if other retailers didn't do similar stuff. You're probably thinking of independent/mom and pop shops.
I would point out that many organizations collect data, but tech companies are the most effective at abusing it. Their competence makes them by far, the most dangerous.
It's the breadth and depth of data which Google, Facebook, and Amazon have access to (and their ability to leverage it) that changes the privacy threat model entirely.
A mom and pop store I give my credit card to in town can't track me across the Internet and correlate my browsing activity to my purchases, for whatever nefarious purpose, for instance. They can't read my email and correlate it with my location data. And so on. That's the difference.
Worse, Google in particular is financially incentivized to track me and perform all that correlation for the purposes of advertising. A family owned business I visit downtown, not so much.
I don't think I have knowingly met anyone who took significant steps to limit exposure to big tech firms who hasn't also taken significant steps in other areas of their life. And people I have met who do take this stuff seriously do things like cash-only, PO box only, no (nearly) online accounts etc. They are certainly making their lives less convenient on this principal.
Where are you meeting people who fit the description you give?
How does this argument come up every time? If I can't have absolute privacy, I should just give up? The same way I'd love to give up every last bit of dependence on Google, I'd love to get decentralized fintech. But the popular one is a bad word that starts with B and I fear has spoiled the well. (Though it's been interesting traveling through Europe and seeing Bitcoin signs all over Prague, the ticket machine offering bitcoin top up at the Bern train station, and a tradesman/construction worker wearing a Bitcoin advocacy shirt while walking to the beach in Bern today. And don't get me started on how much time I've spent triple-re-verifying my identity with Mastercard or waiting 5+ days for critical ACH transactions.)
No but there's a good argument there in terms of priorities.
What is more likely to impact you negatively: Google building an internal profile based on your information and targeting ads based on it or your card information being stolen from insecure smaller vendors?
Obviously those 2 choices are picked arbitrarily but they may explain why the OP chose to prefer the former over the latter. I would think every time we decide to share some of our information we do so because we stand to gain something (otherwise why do it) and it's up to us to decide if what we stand to lose is worth it. As technically minded people we tend to be more focused on technical problems and what we consider more dangerous may be more related to our familiarity with the subject matter rather than the objective potential negative impact it has.
I mean, "my card information being stolen" is literally only an issue because credit card companies won't force US retailers to accept proper chip and pin. It just is not an issue everywhere I've been in Europe because it is categorically impossible for them to steal my card information with contactless payments.
As for the magnitude of privacy invasion regarding financial transactions, I feel very safe in saying the data Google has about/from me is far more revealing than relatively opaque transaction logs.
Google is worse without question. Having your card number stolen is a minor inconvenience whose danger is inflated by services offering to protect you from it. Happened to me once, they charged $1500 before my credit union called me. I had to spend a total of an hour on the phone with a few different people, and the money was credited back to my account within 48 hours. This is with a debit card, which are constantly subject to FUD on this issue from the vendors of credit cards.
Note that you provided reasons as to why having debit/credit card information stolen isn't such a big deal, if you get protection from fraudulent transactions, but haven't provided any reasons as to why Google targeting ads based on some profile they built on you is worse than that.
> while freely giving away their info to credit card companies, traditional retailers, small businesses.
No, we don't. We are just not given a choice by this bullshit capitalist society. Just like many people "freely live on the streets" or "freely get murdered by the police".
I'd like to second this. The amount of free compute available to serverless infrastructure is insane! Serverless does have a learning curve but it's worth it to learn.
I love Heroku but the problem is the price. The free tier is amazing, but once you get above that, the price scales way out of proportion. It's worth it if you're profitable beyond the point of infrastructure costs and just need to outsource operational costs. But if you're strong on operations and short on cash, Heroku is pretty darn expensive.
It's cheaper than hiring an operations team, but it's a heck of a lot more expensive than, say, dokku on a Digital Ocean or Linode VPS.
1. Every action seems slower than Figma and Sketch-my main tool
2. Some short cuts didn't seem to to work, like how I can't copy and paste a canvas. It was hard for me to forego muscle memory
3. Is there a way to try it without signing up for an account? Like a sandbox? I tried to delete my account but because I logged in via Google and it requires me to enter a password (I don't know), I can't delete.