Have you ever chained three Cisco 2600 routers together and then successfully ping’d clients on each end? Do you know what BGP is? OSPF? Do you know the difference between routing and routed protocols?

I know you don’t, because people who do don’t make the claims you’re making.

No they fucking don’t, that’s not what routers do. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

And don’t fucking tell me NAT is for security, either.

Skype won’t be supporting anything at all very soon.

What happened with Vonage is something that could happen with any kind of instant messaging, including things like Discord.

With everything directly addressable (not just static addresses, but directly addressable), an IM/VoIP service can simply connect to the recipient. No servers are necessary in between, only routers. That doesn’t work with NAT (CG or otherwise), so what you have to do is create a server that everyone connects into, and then that forwards messages to the endpoint. This is:

• More expensive to operate
• Less reliable
• Slower
• A point for NSA eavesdropping (which almost certainly happened)

This is largely invisible to end users until free services get enshittified or something goes wrong.

Yes, it’s only tangentially related to static addresses, but it’s all part of the package. This is not the Internet we should have had.

And at least in the US (in single family homes) its crazy unlikely that your router is behind any NAT

Your router has NAT. That’s the problem. CGNAT is another problem. My C&C: Generals issues did not have CGNAT.

. . . nobody at home actually runs VOIP . . .

Plenty of people used Skype and Vonage. Both were subverted because they have to assume NAT is there.

. . . quick game servers don’t need static . . .

But they do work better without NAT. That’s somewhat separate from static addresses.

My old roommate and I had tons of problems back in the day when we tried to host an Internet game of C&C: Generals behind the same NAT. I couldn’t connect to him. He couldn’t connect to me. We could connect to each other but nobody outside could. It’s a real problem that’s only been “solved” because a lot of games have moved to publisher-hosted servers. Which has its own issues with longevity.

You can get IPv6 addresses. What you can’t get, in many cases, is a static IPv6 prefix assignment.

CGNAT is not fine. Its problems are simply hidden from most people. ISPs have to have more equipment that’s less reliable, increases latency, and is potentially a bandwidth bottleneck.

The reason they have no use for a static address is because applications haven’t evolved to work that way. Roll back the clock 30 years, do IPv6 seriously so that everyone has static assignments by the time the Y2k problem has come and gone, and you have a very different Internet.

In fact, many applications, like VoIP and game hosting, have to go through all sorts of hoops to work around NAT.

“Hashed emails”. Besides the fact that they can match up a hash from one source to a hash from another source to link them to the same person, emails often have enough predictability to break the hash. Assuming they all end in “@gmail.com”, “@outlook.com”, or “@yahoo.com” will get you the vast majority of emails out there. Unlike a good password scheme, people don’t shove a lot of random data into their email addresses.

DNS over HTTPS bypasses pihole, and you have to do some effort to make it work. DNS in general is such a mess.

Rebuild from scratch gets a bad reputation sometimes because it’s the go-to response of a junior programmer with a little experience. They know the system could be done better, and it seems like the fastest way to get there is to throw out everything.

What often happens next is the realization that the existing system was handling far more edge cases than it initially appears. You often discover these edge cases when the new system is deployed and someone complains about their use case breaking. As you fix each one, the new system starts to look worse than the old while supporting half its features.

This often leads people to prefer refactors rather than rewrites. Those can take a lot longer than expected and never quite shed what made the old system bad. Budget cuts can leave the whole project in a halfway state that’s worse than if it was left alone.

There are no easy answers, and the industry has not solved this problem.

So it’s a “ask forgiveness, not permission” sort of thing?

N=1 self studies are somewhat common historically though, right? Albert Hofmann synthesized LSD in his lab and took the first documented LSD trip. More recently, I seem to recall that one of the Modena founders took their Covid vax the moment they synthesized it in early 2020 (having trouble finding a citation on that, though).

It wouldn’t be my first choice, but it’ll probably do the job. Depends on what you want to do with it. There’s fewer people choosing this path, which means that when things go wrong, you’ll have fewer sources of information to help.

Some old Dell office PC with a good amount of RAM and an SSD would be just as well.

What are you even on about? If there’s a flaw in the system, the best that can be done is make it clear to the group that we shouldn’t abuse this, and hope the official rules are changed at some point.

If nothing has happened, then nothing needs to be done. I sometimes float exploits in the rules past my friends for various games, but make it clear I have no intention of playing that way.

I even tested something in Terraforming Mars this past weekend. I made it clear with the group ahead of time that I wanted to try something, what the strategy was, and how I would be playing. They were all fine with it, and it turned out the strategy was broken as hell. Won by 12 points against a fairly experienced group. It’s also a boring way to play that game and I wouldn’t care to do it again.

That’s also how I know that it’s fruitless to expect rules to avoid these situations entirely. They must be handled socially. Any other tool is inadequate.

What we infer from it all is that someone is using a rule in a way that’s detrimental to the group. We may want to change the rule, or it may be time to have a talk, or it may be time to kick them out.

As far as assumptions go, that cuts both ways All I’m saying is that we don’t take any of the options above off the table.

Yet ostracizing people is a more acceptable position than a rules patch?

Yes. If you can’t get someone to knock off bad behavior, the rules do not matter.

If the rules aren’t something to be changed, why do they charge so much for the rules revision they just put out?

There are good reasons to change rules. People breaking social norms is not one of them.

DnD isn’t just a set of rules, though. It is inherently a social activity, and that means there has to be a certain level of expectation for social norms. If your group has toxic people in it, they will be toxic while playing tic-tac-toe.

The solution is to employ social pressure or ostracism for those people. We can certainly modify rules that have proven abusive in the past, but enforcing rules of conduct must always be the first line of defense.

If it’s enough negative thoughts pile up, they’ll eventually breach a threshold where people avoid the company. I was looking forward to Metroid Prime 4, but I’m thinking of skipping it now.

I actually love rules lawyering, but it has to be done away from the table, and done with a certain amount of good faith. And don’t get mad when others rules lawyer you back.

In 7th Ed 40k, I found a way to make the Tau Stormsurge to be even more ridiculous than it already was. It clearly conflicted with RAI. I had to talk it out with another Tau player, who was a real lawyer, to find a way to invalidate it. He had to pull out actual lawyer tricks of carefully reading the rule to disentangle it, and he agreed it wasn’t at all obvious.

But I never played with that interpretation, and never intended to. Tau players already have a reputation for playing like dicks.

You are 100% free to live out your pile of dust fantasy. I let you be a pile of dust. Isn’t that what you wanted?