First of, in Europe we use ISO 8601, which is quite different from the military time which the USA uses.
Second, in my home country we still say "16 on the clock" or "15:45 on the clock" (just translated to the native language, eg. "Klokken 16") to signify we're talking time and not weight or distance.
The speech is about software (and laws) not being able to properly limit software, and that as long as we have "General-Purpose Computing" (aka. PCs or hardware/computers that you have access to) we will not be able to properly limit software. Cory just didn't think as far as the solution 15 years later being to move the hardware on which your software runs away from you.
It is quite tragicomic how we went from mainframes and terminals in the 60's to GPC/PCs in the 90's and now are moving back to cloud (aka. mainframes and terminals but on a global scale).
I mean, compared to other blockers it has awesome out-of-box functionality, but... It just kinda lacks something. And those filters are that something. ;)
Oh no! Sorry, while I did use LoRa a lot back during uni (also writing custom protocols and stuff for semi-autonomous coordinated drones), the above was just an example for the sake of understanding.
That said, I do like to read about LoRa and doing hobby projects with it, so Reticulum does look very interesting. TIL
Uh, also remember to enable the cookie and annoyance filters in Ublock. It doesn't do much by default.
Thank you!
But don't say that too early, I think the exchange further down could have gone better (not least from my side).
The above is mostly from the top of my head plus most of us are surely still tired after tonight's' festivities. Though, I hope I'm not just reiterating what @Zagorath@aussie.zone already knows, so I hope others will correct me or add on.
Just saw this comment.
Yes, you are completely right. That's likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner.
Obviously TCP/IP is better at describing TCP/IP than OSI, though while OSI also can be used to describe TCP/IP in a sub-optimal manner, TCP/IP cannot be used to describe OSI.
I think I found the source of confusion.
The OSI model describes networking in general, defining a model in which almost all networks can be categorized and compared. This is important as hundreds (if not thousands) of standards and methods exist for handling each separate layer - some publicized, but many hidden/propriety/unpublicized.
Meanwhile, the TCP/IP model describes only a very narrow subset of networks, though it just so happens to be the most used kind of network - The Internet - is part of this.
This means that if you are working with the internet, then TCP/IP will likely cover all your needs, but as soon as you move onto more specialized or simply uncommon network types TCP/IP will be close to useless.
We could take an example:
I'm setting up a LoRa network between some neighbors, measuring stations, etc. The network will not be connected directly to the internet, so there will be no possibility of data transfer between the LoRa network and the internet until you reach the OSI Presentation layer.
The LoRa network will need to be much more efficient than the general-purpose internet-networking, and since only a few machines will be connected we'll use only a single octet as device identifier (alternative to MAC/IP, lets call it SoMAC), also having to write our own discovery service.
Likewise, we will make a new custom transport layer based on TCP, but with only space for that single octet identifier, no flags, no IP, and no checksums (I like to live dangerous). Let's call that SoSTRIP.
At last, we'll need to write some kind of socket to make sending the information easy, for simplicity we'll use a Unnamed Pipe.
Now, how would we go about representing this in both models (OSI vs. TCP/IP)?
In OSI we'd have:
In TCP/IP we'd have:
Please note that this is purely for demonstration purposes, as it's absolutely unfair to compare TCP/IP and OSI in this way, since they both are designed for different purposes, with TCP/IP being more popular but narrow, and OSI being more general but overly complicated for most use cases.
Also, please feel free to correct me, since it's been a hot moment since I had about OSI and TCP/IP in uni.
==EDIT== Formatting
Apologies, that's my fault, I thought you wrote "TCP model(/protocol)" and not "TCP/IP model", which are indeed two very different things.
I feel that the OSI model focuses more on the specific layers with their relations and physical/digital setup, while the TCP/IP model has more of a abstract and "high-level"-focus. I think both have their ups and downs, though I'm still confused what about OSI is "theoretical and has never been used".
What do you mean "Theoretical" and "Never been used"? Are you writing this by sending off radio waves purely with your mind? Am I the only one using a modem and computer? (/j, but it seems to me that you're asking "why a plane needs engines and wings, when it already has a payload")
TCP (and UDP) just describe how to assemble the data into packages which can be somewhat reliably reassembled on the other end.
While it does have an address stamped on top (IP), it doesn't know how to get anywhere by itself. That's where the bottom 3 OSI layers come in (the physical wires - or wireless spectra/wavelengths - the data is transmitted through, the specifications of how the embedded devices talk to each other over these wires, and how to discover other embedded or other devices on a network). I can very much assure you that the wires do exist and are indeed in use.
Contrary, the upper layers are more about keeping communication going once a connection has been established.
I'm uncomfortable.
TV time and military time don't even use 24 hours. You can have a TV show that goes from 23:30 to 25:15 (25>24, in 24h it would be 01:15).
I imagine those who call 24h "military time" also say "I'll be home from work on Friday at 4100 AM", which makes about the same amount of sense.