Aceticon

Theoretically the sites would have to block all IP addresses of all cloud providers, including massive ones such as Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure, because people in Wisconsin can just run VPN Server software - which is side of the VPN were the network connections exit the encrypted tunnel and enter the Internet - in a container or virtual machine inside one those to have their own personal (or shared with whomever they want) VPN.

Similarly they would have to block all exit IPs of most companies because somebody in Winsconsin might be using the VPN of the company remotelly go to their company network and via that network access those sites and which point the connection will probably appear as originating from one of the company's routers because of NAT.

The way the VPN technology works, theoretically every single IP address on the internet might be an exit point of a VPN which is being used by somebody in Winsconsin to access one of those sites, since one can even run VPN Server software on a mobile phone or Raspberry Pi.

Theoreticaly those sites have to block every single IP address which might directly or indirectly be used that way.

This law is completelly insane.

Given that the only way for those websites to block VPN traffic is to block the IP addresses of all known VPN exit points, what you would see is first the commercial VPN providers regularly rotating those IP addresses of their VPN server exit points, and second people simply setting up their own VPN servers software in rented VPS machines in cloud providers anywhere in the World to run their own personal VPN.

You don't really need a full blown remote session, just a VPN server in a machine (physical or virtual) with an IP address which isn't yet blocked by such a site.

Now, the sites might try and block this by only allowing in connections from blocks of addresses which are known to belong to ISPs (which would theoretically only be direct connections from individuals, so not using a VPN), but that's way less reliable than merelly lists of IP addresses of the VPN servers of big providers, plus it would block thing such as the entirety of Amazon AWS.

Ok, so basically when your computer uses a VPN it just connects to a VPN server over the Internet using an encrypted TCP/IP or UDP/IP connection. On your computer side all your connections to the Internet just get shoved into that encrypted tunel instead of going directly into the whole wide world from your own network connection - so nobody but that server sees those connections - whilst on the VPN server side they're recieved from that encrypted tunel and then exit to the whole wide world from that VPN server as if they're connections initiated by that server not by your own machine, so to the whole world they look like connections coming from the VPN server machine.

Nations with nation-wide firewalls can try and block VPN by blocking the actual encrypted network connections to VPN servers (there are ways to recognize those, but there also ways to disguise them), but for websites to block them (which is what this legislation demands) the websites have to block the actual VPN servers since the websites can only see connections to them which seem to originate in those servers, not traffic elsewhere on the Internet such as the encrypted connections from VPN customers to VPN servers.

Now, there are lists of the IP addresses of the exit points of VPN providers (generally the VPN server internet address), which are the IP addresses were the traffic of somebody using that VPN enters the Internet, so to try to comply with this legislation those sites would start by blocking all traffic from any of those IP addresses - remember those websites don't know were the traffic coming from a VPN server to that website really comes from, so they can't tell traffic from people in Wisconsin using that VPN server from traffic from people elsewhere using it, hence have to block everything from it to catch everybody from Winsonsin.

This would affect everybody anywhere in the World using those exit points of those VPN providers.

Then there's the problem that the legislation applies to all VPNs, not just commercial VPN providers serving retail customers, meaning that the websites would also theoretically have to block VPN servers from business VPNs (and given how the networks of many large companies work, that might mean blocking the entire company) as well as things like schools using VPNs and, even more entertaining, VPNs set up by individuals by, for example, renting a Virtual Private Server or physical server and installing a Linux there running their own VPN server software or even installing the VPN server software on something like Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure, which means they might have to block every single IP address of any provider of servers space anywhere in the World (as any Wisconsian could, theoretically, over the Internet rent a cheap VPS in, say, Malasia, and install a Linux with running the VPN server software in it) as well as of all AWS and Azure servers since again any Wisconsian could theoretically run VPN server software hosted in one of those providers.

The whole things is insane as fuck and would have some trully fucked up implications for any website that tried to comply, as well as for anybody anywhere in the world using VPNs who might want to access such sites.

If I understood it correctly, per that legislation and given how the technology works, adult sites would have to block everybody coming to them from a known VPN exit point, not matter where the user actually is (because a site can't really tell were a user actually is when they're behind a VPN) to comply with it, meaning that it would impact everybody everywhere in the World using a VPN.

De facto Wisconcin's legilslature is trying to imposed their will not only on those who live in Wisconsin, not only on those who live anywhere in the US but on those who live anywhere in World.

Talentless hack and way out of his depth grifter who knows the position he has reached and the money he makes in it is really just supported by cultivated connections and his bullshiting ability, rather than any superior strategical capabilities, when the business "strategy" he chose as CEO merelly because "everybody else is doing it" starts to be perceived as not just broken but a bit of a shit show, keeps on trying to push the impression that, actually, he's just a misunderstood visionary and it's others that don't yet recognize how wonderful the direction he chose for the company is.

By using such arguments, maybe once again he'll "fake it until you make it" his way into success (after all, that's how he became MS' CEO in the first place) or, at worst, it will extend how long he can keep on getting paid the big bucks for nothing more than being a lucky bullshitter with the right connections.

I've been in Tech on and off since the 90s, including in Tech Startups, and nowadays "leaders" in it are pretty much all grifters, not techies with a vision.

I've been reading the posts here and most people are coming from a "decent honest person trying to do his jobs as well as possible" point of view in their reading of the guy (probably because that's the kind of person they are) and thus giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, whilst from what I've seen in that world this guy is almost certainly a talentless hack at anything other than grifting and who, lacking any above average strategical thinking abilities, went for the "everybody else is doing it" strategy which is now blowing up, so of course he'll use typical grifter skills to try and dig his way out of that hole or, at least, stave off the innevitable end of getting big fat $$$ for holding a position he's not actually competent at.

The guy is gaslighting because he's a grifter not a strategist and the "it's others, not me" line of argument is a common "defend & delay" tool in a grifter's toolbox.

Innovation as an inherently good thing (rather than merelly new) has always been a mantra and a slogan of the post-2000 Crash generation of Tech "Leaders", who unlike the ones in the 90s, are almost always grifters rather than techies.

A grifter, when his personal upside maximization (in the form of keeping his job and performance bonuses) is at stake, will say whatever it takes to try and push the impression that his strategical choices as head of a Tech company are "visionary" rather than "blind fad following" because at best he might succeed at "fake it until you make it" and at worst he's delaying the moment when he stops getting the big bucks for what is mainly bullshitting abilities.

So maybe Mustafa Suleyman smokes the tech bollocks he sells and genuinelly thinks that this stuff is an improvement for customers, but personally and having been in Tech (and the Tech Startup world) on and off since the 90s, my bet is that his words are nothing more than a grifter grifting because that's the kind of person that world has been rewarding the most since the 2000 Crash.

Nah, most of Europe did exactly the same thing as America last time around. Hell the EU went out of its way to make sure bankers didn't lose money (how do you think Greek Debt which was entirely in private hands ended up in the hands of the EU, which then turned around and forced Austerity of Greece "to avoid losses of money of EU taxpayers") - the Corruption was just as bad on this side of the pond as it was on the other.

Iceland stands out because they were almost unique in the West in making the bankers pay for their shenanigans.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out that by the very "logic" of that Propaganda, Israel is way more murderous towards gay Palestinians than Hamas.

It's a propaganda line that falls flat in the face of even the simplest logical analysis.

One has to actually be a total idiot to believe that Israel is nicer to gay Palestinians than Hamas or think that everybody else are total idiots who will believe such nonsense.

Clearly Israel only ever used special bombs, rockets, artilery shells and bullets which, when they detected a gay person, would change trajectory to avoid harming that person.

Believing that is the only way to possibly believe that Israel wasn't harming gay people when arbitrarily bombing Gaza and even targetting refugee camps.

Ditto for "opposition people" or whatever other subset of the Palestinian population you can think of: Israel was literally targetting refugee camps and appartment buildings thus killing all kinds of people without exception.

Compared to what Israel did to Palestinian opposition and gay people, what even the most extremist of Hamas did to them is nothing.

Read the rest of the article.

They're talking about "affordable Samsung models".

"Budget" for a Samsung, not "budget" for a smartphone on that region and definitelly not "low budged".

Want to check what "low budged" means for a smartphone in unstable (read: poor) regions, go to to AliExpress and search for "cheap smartphone".

No Name Chinese brand is "low budget" in those regions, not Samsung.

This is the American version of Kremlinology: just like then all manner of non-political actions of members of the Soviet elites were studied to try to predict the direction of the Soviet Union, now all manner of non-political actions of members of the American elites are studied to try to predict the direction of the United States.

The reason for that kind of thing is that in systems were almost all of the real thinking, motivations and even politically revelevant actions of the elites controlling those nations are hidden or disguised, the only way to try and deduce what's going on is to look at those things which by need or because they're deemed to unimportant aren't hidden or disguised.

Peter Tiel's bulk stock sales and purchases are one of such non-political data points that might be important in predicting the short- and mid-term future of the US, at least Economically, which in turn has Political implications and more broadly for the future of American and Americans.

Sadly what American elites do in the Stockmarkets tells us a lot more about were they see the country going to than what they say, which itself already tells us way more than what Politicians say.