It's the 21st century. Blowhards of the world united with the miracle of technology are moaning at any attempt of common sense regulation. This will become culture wars material right away.
I hadn't realized there was a name for this! (i thought it's just procrastinating)
This what I do 90+% of the time, I work with my ADHD and put off doing as much as I can until the last minute. Then do weeks worth of work in hours.
To note:
If you're thinking of doing this, be careful, it can be extremely stressful
Only do it on stuff you're good at or understand the implications if it goes wrong, because this method doesn't allow much time to change your mistakes.
If its something new i will not do this (or i'll break it down in chunks)
The Napoleon approach is intentional, borne out of belief that a lot of communication is actually meaningless waffle produced by people whose first instict, when faced with an issue, is to talk about it with someone, rather than putting some thought into it; and a lot of it is just people being impatient.
Your thing is just procrastination. Although it can result in similar behaviour, in practice, it's a different thing.
my excessive procrastinating definitely overlaps with this (as I call it in project) meaningless bollocks. and I intentionally let people go on and on, until things stabilize. Endless meetings going around and around, discussing loads but coming up with nothing much
Mostly I put it down to education/ understanding - eg people need around 5-10 repetitions to understand stuff.
To combat this, I modify my documents and diagrams to show how simple things are, make sure all acronyms are explained properly (over and over again) and make 'solutions' into a "story" eg beginning, middle and end explaining how/ why / decisions.
Meaningless bollocks still exist, I let other people run around like headless chickens - I think people like the chaos and fun (well I try and make it fun)
Actually I had some good luck with hiring people that have the minimum marks and huge amount of outside adjacent skills. One example is someone who was running a manufacturing operation on second shift and completing an engineering degree at the same time.
Not specifically the same but there's an adage, "C's get degrees". (I guess it's about how even if you got C's, you're still good enough to have a sheet of paper that even your class topper had?)
I always went with C is for cookie and that's good enough for me. Along with D for diploma.
But note, some schools require a C in prereqs to take further courses. And some schools may put you on academic probation/kick you out if your GPA falls below a C. So D for diploma is a sometimes grade.
This is something I learned from one of my (frankly fairly effective and powerful) parents. My wife, who is super conscientious just thinks its procrastinating, or worse, doing nothing until she does something. From experience in my own family acting like this can seem very selfish because usually if someone brings a problem to your attention they want you to show you are also concerned by acting and solving. Doing nothing can look bad.
But it can be smart! It's not just that problems solve themselves, it's also that the best course of action becomes clear with time. The optics of inaction can be terrible, which is why junior people managing upward nearly always start trying to tackle a problem immediately. For senior people, you need to acknowledge you are aware of a problem and will do something. I think this is one of the reasons managers implement process that seems kind of useless. Like meetings to discuss a decision without making the decision. To participants it can be frustrating but it is a way for the person in charge to show they know a problem exists that also lets them put off doing anything.
100%, but smoke screen is over selling it. From the article
> The project is being carried out in collaboration with Transport for London, QinetiQ, PA Consulting, Imperial College London and University of Sussex.
QinetiQ is a UK weapons developer, probably the UKs largest. So the defence angle isn’t really being hidden.
Older articles on this project from elsewhere outline the defence angle even more explicitly:
But IanVisits is a transport focused blog, so the article has a transport focus, rather than a defence focus.
As to why any of this is happening on the underground, that’s pretty simple. Tube trains are a good real world test bed for this technology. Shove your quantum box on an existing train, drive it through the existing tunnels a few times as part of a normal tube service. Compare the run result and validate how accurate your technology is.
It’s a lot cheaper than putting it on a boat or a submarine. Not to mention Imperial College London is based in… London. They’re literally a five minute walk from a tube station.
Yes this is weapons technologies. Many targets are fixed (on the earth). If you can fly by wire jamming technology is useless. This was solved for strategic weapons 40 years ago at great cost.
The real problem is weapons often have power and weight limitations that don't apply to trains. So you can build large, power hungry prototypes and test them on a train. Once you work out the bugs found there you then start the miniaturization and lower power versions for where you really want it (or save a lot of money by not doing that work for something that you know can't work anyway)
I moved away from SysAdmin around 2010 and I worked with a fair amount of other techies and it really was the wild west in the stuff various people did with: sizeable production systems, Firewall rules (or lack of) network connectivity/ switches, and code changes
Get a cool tool from a magazine? yep just throw it on to production servers - no testing or letting people know what the hell they did (I got burnt a few times from people doing this!)
no change control, no documentation - just reverse the changes, if it doesn't work immediately - although some people never even made back ups of the previous files - crazy shit
The problem with private address ranges is that everyone thinks they're available. In a large enough enterprise you're bound to have conflicts. They usually pop up at the most inconvenient time and suddenly you're cosplaying ARIN in your IT department.
If you just use that space as a flat range, it is almost certainly more than enough. But if you split it up in multiple levels of subnets, you can run into difficulties balancing having enough subnets and having enough space in each subnet.
That will never ever happen. Making 240/4 public will break Amazon (and many others) which do use it privately. The software updates to route it across the net would have been taxing. When making it public was suggested years ago, IETF saw the proposition as encouraging IPv4 and refused to entertain it.
In short: The market has already decided and it's private. It's far from the first time an unofficial arrangement is the de facto standard.
We burned thru pretty much all of our public /8, RFC1918, and have begun digging into RFC6589 (a /10 I didn’t even know existed prior to job). Still shocks me. Hardly an expert in the space, but I think the issue comes from subnetting to distribute ranges to teams that need a consistent IP address space for some project or another. Lots of inefficiency & hoarding over time. We’ve had legitimate outages and impending platform death staved off by last minute horse-trading & spooky technical work due to such things. IPV6 has always been a distant aspiration.
The best one is async routing. You have a NAT, they have a NAT, you VPN together and think you have different IP address ranges, but unknown to the operator there's a little internal network with an overlap at the end of some slow line that is now getting flooded with internal traffic that's trying to go to a completely different network.
I've worked for companies with over 50,000 employees and they didn't seem to need it. Now, sure, there are larger companies, or ones that employ huge farms of machines, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Pretty much every fortune 500 company does, which counts for millions of people on their networks every day. The troubleshooting calls for VPN routing vs internal LAN routing are fun endeavors of who is actually willing to take responsibility for things they don't understand.
I've spent half a year getting nowhere on a discussion involving VPN-ing parts of the company just to have connectivity for specific services where part of the problem was lots and lots of overlapping 10./8 allocations - partially because everyone setting a "VPC" or some local dc network was doing individual 10./8, often "in name of simplicity".
With subnetting needs, possibly dealing with VPNs to other networks that might use 10./8, ISPs that might use 10./8 instead of CGNAT space (100.64./10), even the total incompetence of some contractors was not reducing how IPv4 was a problem.
And that's before you hit the part where Microsoft products have been IPv6 First since ~2008 and there are entire feature sets that are very interesting to bigger companies (like well integrated always-on vpn for laptops) that require working v6
Unless you get to big. Or you merge with another company and have to combine your internal networks and oops, all the subnets are overlapping. Or you need to serve mobile clients who get better connectivity over v6.
if both you and companies you have site to site vpn with have IPv6 there is no IP conflict or NAT to worry about.... and that's about end of the advantages
aka competition
reply