I am more concern with how they make scam much less detectable.

You can hyper-target your ad or scam to vulnerable individual.

Unlike traditional media, like newspaper, you can post an ad with no visibility outside your target group -- which is hard to discover.

The report button is just some generic "second look" and automation within the same organization, there are no oversight.

Can you say the same for tesla or cisco?

Not to the same scale but yes. At least there are Teslas still made here.

With Apple it's the scale of what was done.

The satellite message thing?

What? you can search from the address bar

I might be understanding.

But if I want to search for any comment by you on this page, how do I do it?

I’m not after a web search, I just want to see ‘j16sdiz’ highlighted on this page.

Currently I go to ‘…’ > share > scroll down > find on page.

If you tap into the address bar, start typing your search, type enough for it to be specific enough that autosuggest crap clears, and “On this page” appears. Wildly undiscoverable in practice.

Wow.

Thank you.

because the you need some consistency or normalisation before applying ACL or do routing?

URL normalization is defined and it doesn't include collapsing slashes.

Not that you can include custom normalization rules (like collapsing slashes, tolower()ing the entire path, removing the query part of the URL), but that's not part of the standard. If you're doing anything extra, the risk of breaking stuff is on you.

If someone gives you a nonsense URL, the correct response is 404, not to try and guess what they could've maybe meant.

> you can just `ping appletv` and it works fine.

How many service does it take to make this work?

mDNS is quite fragile.

I haven’t seen a bog-standard router yet that didn’t just do it out of the box.

When it fail, you find there is no option to tune its behaviour.

Plug in a rough router and see quickly you can find it.

What kind of failure are you referring to? What would you want to tune? You can still easily locate all devices on your network.

ULA give more trouble than what it solves.

Almost all computer have multiple interface (virtual or not). Application now need to know which interface the destination is on, and there is no easy data structure to store the interface

> ULA give more trouble than what it solves.

How? They're essentially the same as IPv4 addresses; the only difference is that there are way more of them, so address conflicts are much less likely.

> Almost all computer have multiple interface (virtual or not)

Sure, but that's the case with IPv4 too: my cell phone has one IPv4 address over WiFi and another over cellular, and my laptop has one IPv4 address over WiFi and another over Ethernet.

Edit: Ah, I think that eqvinox's comment [0] is what you were getting at here. And yeah, I agree that LLAs are kinda confusing and annoying. The difference is that LLAs aren't routable [1] and don't have an IPv4 analog, while ULAs are routable and are mostly equivalent to IPv4 addresses [2].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47814154

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address

> LLAs (...) and don't have an IPv4 analog

They do. You don't really see them on Linux unless configured manually, but Windows defaults (or at least defaulted in the past, my Windows-foo is very outdated by now) to a IPv4 LLA when DHCP fails.

The difference is that IPv6 requires it on every interface regardless of whether it has a different address already.

You're confusing ULAs (Unique Local Addresses) with LLAs (Link-Local Addresses).

(ULAs don't need the interface specified.)

ULA: fc..:… and fd..:…

LLA: fe80:…

[ed.: By the way, sin6_scope_id is where the interface identifier is stored in struct sockaddr_in6. So, basically every single IPv6 address object you're handling has the field for it.]

TBH, I don't see much enrichment they are giving in last 5 or 6 years.

> These requirements make sense.

I think requirement 3 can make sense if we start painting everybody as potential criminal.

but requirement 2 never make sense to me. -- why need age check to publish to adult user?