That 1956 article on the long-distance telephone network is fascinating reading.
The chart on page 24 gives the very first division of the US phone into area codes, many of which have of course remained unchanged today.
From page 82, when discussing automated in-band signaling on the phone lines:
> The signal component is a band about 100 cycles [Hz] wide centering on the signal frequency [2600 Hz]. [...] In the talking condition (tone off in both directions) the guard detector sensitivity is such that almost a pure tone is required to operate the receiver since other than signal frequencies will produce a voltage opposing its operation. The guard feature prevents false operation of the receiver from speech signals.
Of course in hindsight, the flaw in this is obvious. The guard band prevents accidental triggering of the signal mechanism by ordinary speech. It does nothing to stop someone from intentionally playing a pure 2600 Hz tone into the telephone handset, using e.g. a whistle from a cereal box.
I completely forgot to bring up the 2600 section in my post! Reading distance dialing led me down a deep rabbit hole. An interesting path was learning more about Joe Engressia (Joybubbles) who could whistle a 2600hz tone to circumvent the supervisory tone which led him to learn more about the system and further the knowledge of the early phreaking community. Folklore around him was off the charts and eventually painted a picture of a superhero who could whistle his way through the whole phone network and into free calls to anywhere just with his mouth. The document linked in my post gives details about the long-distance signalling and why being a great whistler was not good enough. That said, definitely check out more about Engressia, because while the whistling wasn't superhuman, the curiousity and drive to learn more may have been!
* (Shameless plug) My book on the history of phone phreaking, Exploding the Phone, which has a lot of stuff on Engressia in it: https://explodingthephone.com/
The thing is that the abundance of IPv6 addresses enables fewer prefixes to be used, by allowing addresses to be allocated in much larger chunks.
For instance, Comcast (AS 7922) owns about 2^26 IPv4 addresses, distributed across 149 different prefixes. Almost all of these prefixes are non-contiguous with each other, so they each require separate routing table entries. Comcast can't consolidate those routes without swapping IP address blocks with other networks, and it can't grow its address space without acquiring new small blocks. (Since no more large blocks are available, as this article discusses.)
In contrast, Comcast owns about 2^109 IPv6 addresses, which are covered by just 5 prefixes (two big ones of 2^108 each, and three smaller ones). It can freely subdivide its own networks within those prefixes, without ever running out of addresses, and without having to announce new routes.
"The administration" is not a monolithic entity. For the last ~150 years, even though it's had political appointees at the top, the vast majority of its employees have been selected (at least ostensibly) on the basis of merit, not political loyalty. They're supposed to be somewhat insulated from the changing political winds. The layers of bureaucracy in between were created deliberately, to preserve some degree of decision-making independence.
When people talk about "the Trump administration tightening its hold", they mean Trump and his political appointees exerting direct control over things that have a strong precedent for being out of their direct control.
Using the word "administration" to conflate the presidency with the layers of organization below it is the main premise of the "unitary executive theory", which is an extremely recent development of the current Supreme Court. Previously, when Congress said "such-and-such a decision is supposed to be made by the staff of agency XYZ, not by the President/Secretary personally", the courts assumed they meant it.
You're conflating two very different things. You're correct that civil service reforms sought to ensure employees would be hired based on merit. But that does not mean they were granted "decision-making independence." The point was to have highly qualified people executing the agenda of the elected President--not to allow them to exercise discretion independent of political forces.
In Federalist 70 Hamilton emphasizes that a key feature of the Constitution is "unity" of executive power in the President: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. Hamilton explains that the Constitution expressly rejects a model that had been adopted by several state governments, where the exercise of executive power was subject to the independent check of the executive's subordinates:
> The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.
> That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.
> This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him.
So the view being espoused here is not a "recent development." Hamilton was explaining back in 1788 the problems with a model where the President was "ostensibly" the head of the administration, but was "subject, in whole or in part, to the control and cooperation" of his theoretical subordinates.
The constitution was understood this way from Hamilton until Myers v. United States in 1926--which held that the President could fire agency heads without Congressional approval because that was necessary to secure his authority to carry out his will as the executive. The Supreme Court only discarded the traditional view of the executive in the 1930s when FDR created the modern administrative state. And what's now labeled "unitary executive theory" is a legal movement that arose in the 1980s to restore the original view of how the executive worked. The new development wasn't the view of executive power, but instead the idea that we should try to restore how things worked prior to the 1930s.
Yes "~150 years" ago (sounds right to me, not sure on the exact date), there was civil service reform. Prior to that every administration would fire the prior servants and install their own because every political party then and now wanted their own people to be of influence in civil service.
This was replaced with a system where it is very difficult to fire most civil servants but the executive could still select new hires (The Trump administration has tried the firing method via DOGE but with not much luck).
There is a common misconception that this reduces political influence and loyalty. This couldn't be further from the truth. What it did was ensure the civil services grew much further, since the only way the next political party in power could regain dominance was to hire even more civil servants until they overpowered the ones already there.
This meant it is even more important to get loyal ones, since they will be there for a long time and can't be fired. So now we have a large civil service full of loyal people that seemingly often sabotage each other, fighting one loyal group against another loyal group. It might be even worse than before civil service reform.
> Yes "~150 years" ago (sounds right to me, not sure on the exact date), there was civil service reform. Prior to that every administration would fire the prior servants and install their own because every political party then and now wanted their own people to be of influence in civil service.
The purpose of civil service reform was to end patronage, not to insulate the civil service from political supervision. The idea was to have well-credentialed employees, instead of political donors, carrying out the policies of the elected President. It was not to have employees exercising power independently of the policies of the President.
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was enacted in 1883. Four decades later, former President Taft wrote Myers v. United States, which still reflected the conventional view that the President was actually in charge of the executive branch.
> What it did was ensure the civil services grew much further, since the only way the next political party in power could regain dominance was to hire even more civil servants until they overpowered the ones already there.
If this were true, why did the number of the federal government employees stop growing in the 80s?
Because after 100 years of growth there was very little room left to keep hiring people, due to pressure on cap of taxes, that's part of why Trump had to resort trying to go back to firing.
Even if it had kept growing, at some point there's a limitation on number of people in the USA that can even work those jobs.
Seems kind of insane to critique the number can't expand to infinity rather to acknowledge it expanded until we got to the point we're already paying 30+% taxes at the upper income bands, plus a large deficit, and there's just very little room left for the populace to tolerate new programs administered by bureaucrats.
> Seems kind of insane to critique the number can't expand to infinity rather to acknowledge it expanded until we got to the point
Well that's what I'm trying to understand. So you're making an argument from the perspective of the political landscape in the 70s and 80s, and you'd like to return us to a federal level 50 - 100 years ago.
Your argument might have been more persuasive in the 80s, but today it's clear that the government is actually vastly more efficient than it has been in the last 80 years, serving a larger population with fewer government employees; there are over 100M more people living in the USA as there were 40 years ago, yet government employment levels remain the same. Returning back to pre-1980s or even 1920s level of government would leave the USA completely at the mercy of corporations (which for some that's the whole point, so maybe that's a good thing from your perspective, but I wouldn't choose that outcome).
> So now we have a large civil service full of loyal people that seemingly often sabotage each other, fighting one loyal group against another loyal group.
Can you name even a single time when two groups of civil servants sabotaged each other in this way? If civil servants engage in this kind of sabotage, how has Trump been able to enact things that are both controversial and flagrantly unlawful without being sabotaged?
There was massive sabotage of the first Trump administration. We're talking about administration lawyers not reporting case developments to political employees in order to keep the political appointees in the dark.
Which activities specifically were sabotaged? Trump was, for example, famously able to implement what he called a "Muslim ban" - previous administration hires can't have been happy about that, yet I don't recall any stories about civil servants sabotaging the implementation of it.
My impression is that many of Trump's political appointees simply don't understand due process requirements, and interpret any legal obstacles to executing their will as sabotage by shadowy figures. You mention case developments, but as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win.
> You mention case developments, but as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win.
I think you are correct here, but it still leaves the open question whether the government's case is weak because it is weak on merits or because the people in charge of defending/executing/prosecuting the case intentionally made holes in it or botched it to make it weak. I won't claim either is the case, only point out either or a mixture of both is hypothetically possible and merely making your assertion true doesn't rule out the latter being true.
Again, this isn’t a hypothetical. The administration has recently been deploying political appointees to prosecute cases the career employees thought were too weak, and they’ve had little success at even securing indictments. The reason Trump and his supporters insist on dragging the discussion to hypotheticals is that all of the concrete things they feel have been “sabotaged” are either impossible or illegal.
You presented it as a non-concrete, without an example. I don't believe this makes you a Trump "supporter" as you put it. The example you gave preceding it was of a Muslim ban working.
I don't doubt you have concrete examples of cases failing on merits, but I am only meeting you on the arena you presented.
I do very much expect people will present to cases on either side they believe are failures based on merits and ones they believe officials intentionally (or even accidently) botched. It's quite possible both have been true, in various cases. I won't make such assertions myself either way in this thread, only note that even if hypothetically what you say is true (even in the concrete) it wouldn't prove the underlying claim.
> Trump was, for example, famously able to implement what he called a "Muslim ban" - previous administration hires can't have been happy about that, yet I don't recall any stories about civil servants sabotaging the implementation of it.
Trump had to fire Sally Yates who refused to defend it in court:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1/31/us-attorney-general.... There was no justification for her refusing to enforce the order. The legality of the order would be tested under rational basis review, which is extremely favorable to the government. And the case squarely implicated the President's authority over national security and the border. It wasn't a slam dunk for the government by any means, but it was way beyond the minimum "colorability" standard for the DOJ to make legal arguments to defend the order while complying with their ethical arguments.
> You mention case developments,
I mean not even updating political appointees about court rulings and such, hoping to keep the cases off the radars of the political appointees.
> as the administration has repeatedly found out recently, career staff are generally right when they identify something as a weak case the government can't possibly win.
The new administration has won quite a lot of cases. For example, with the funding cuts, the legal strategy was quite well developed. That's why you heard so much in the media about impoundment. Impoundment is what you start talking about when you have no argument that "the administration cannot make this specific cut." It's the argument that, "well, if the administration makes all these cuts, it's an impoundment problem because the administration needs to spend that money on something within the statutory scope." That's why many universities have settled with the administration. They know that, even if they can win on impoundment or something like that, they can't make the administration reinstate the grants to them specifically.
Similarly on affirmative action, the administration has pursued a strong strategy. The kind of affirmative action that was allowed in universities before SFFA was never permitted in employment. But lots of companies engaged in blatantly illegal conduct in adopting preferences or quotas for specific groups: https://www.cadwalader.com/quorum/index.php?nid=9&eid=35. Companies aren't even fighting the administration on this for the most part on that front.
The new administration certainly has had some losses. Part of that is that they're litigating like liberals--making aggressive arguments to push the boundaries of the law, knowing that it will lose a lot of cases. The other part is that the administration doesn't have "A" players in every position. For example on the tariffs, there were major weaknesses in the trial arguments.
>an you name even a single time when two groups of civil servants sabotaged each other in this way?
DOGE vs USAID
>If civil servants engage in this kind of sabotage, how has Trump been able to enact things that are both controversial and flagrantly unlawful without being sabotaged?
I mean they have, look at all the civil servants who were fired and then sued for their jobs back with the leverage of judges who were prior appointed by Democrat leaning politics. Trump's attempt to eliminate large portions of the civil service has failed pretty spectacularly.
DOGE were not "civil servants" in the slightest. And USAID tried to sabotage DOGE?? Your entire worldview is backwards. (Looking through your past posts and yiikes yeah)
Yes, it’s true that Trump specifically has instructed civil servants to sabotage each other. You know why this is a dishonest answer, so I don’t see the point of continuing this conversation. The day will come when your heroes face the consequences of pointlessly killing all the children USAID helped, and you beg for everyone to forget you ever supported it; I look forward to rubbing the salt in your wounds, but until then I have no interest in what you have to say.
> Expectations vs systemd/supervisord/tmux/dtach: where would you use this?
Sorry to be blunt, but I feel like this is a big unanswered question that you should be addressing. Why would I use your tool over the other well-known alternatives? I read through your overview and I don't see an answer.
You say that this is intended "for environments where you don’t want to stand up a full supervisor stack (or don’t have one)". And you compare it to systemd. But what Linux developer doesn't already have systemd installed?
Or to use a different comparison, what advantage does "fws run" have over "podman run"? Podman already supports PTYs that can be attached/detached, allows isolating different processes, and has an HTTP API.
It seems like you intend this for situations where you want a multi-pane text-base UI that resembles an IDE. But personally, I prefer to do this sort of thing by composing existing tools that provide that functionality (namely tmux/screen and Docker/Podman) rather than using a single integrated tool that tries to replace both.
The "incorrect state" being talked about is the IP prefix being misregistered in ARIN's database.
The "hijacking" happened later, when the IP prefix was announced via BGP by the registrant who it was incorrectly assigned to. Those are two different events.
> Schoolcraft amassed a set of tapes which demonstrated corruption and abuse within New York City's 81st Police Precinct. The tapes include conversations related to the issues of arrest quotas and investigations. [...] Schoolcraft was harassed, particularly in 2009, after he began to voice his concerns within the precinct. He was told he needed to increase arrest numbers and received a bad evaluation.
His fellow officers had him involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward. They told the hospital that his claims were a sign of paranoid delusions. He was eventually vindicated, but his career was destroyed.
It's been a long time since I heard this, but I believe there is recording here [0] of his colleagues forcing themselves into his apartment to have him committed.
> When the kernel starts it does not have all of the parts loaded that are needed to access the disks in the computer, so it needs a filesystem loaded into the memory called initramfs (Initial RAM filesystem).
The kernel might not have all the parts needed to mount the filesystem, especially on a modern Linux distro that supports a wide variety of hardware.
Initramfs exists so that parts of the boot logic can be handled in userspace. Part of this includes deciding which device drivers to load as kernel modules, using something like udev.
Another part is deciding which root filesystem to mount. The root FS might be on an LVM volume that needs to be configured with device-mapper, or unlocked with decrypt. Or it might be mounted over a network, which in turn requires IP configuration and authentication. You don't want the kernel to have those mechanisms hard-coded, so initramfs allows handling them in userspace.
But strictly speaking, you don't need any of that for a minimal system. You can boot without initramfs at all, as long as no special userspace setup is required. i.e., the root FS is a plain old disk partition specified on the kernel command line, and the correct drivers (e.g. for a SCSI/SATA hard drive) are already linked into the kernel.
Only if you compiled your kernel with literally every module. If you compile your kernel with only the modules your system needs, there’s no such issue
Well yes, when you start customizing Gentoo it tends to make hardware changes more difficult. e.g. march=native makes CPU changes difficult, but it's still very common on Gentoo
This. Only CPU microcode can't be loaded without an initramfs unless you enable late loading, but that's labeled dangerous because it may cause instability. If needed, you could let the built-in motherboard uefi do the microcode updates instead.
When you're making a work of art (such as a game) you don't just want any old font, you want one that serves a particular aesthetic purpose.
If you've picked a typeface, and designed other UI elements that look good in conjunction with it, but suddenly that typeface becomes unaffordable, then you have to do some work to find an alternative that's still acceptable.
In particular, game UI tends to be designed around the particular dimensions (metrics) of a font's characters. So a string of text whose size is "just right" in one font might look too big or too small in another, even at the same nominal font size. And this can affect many different pieces of text throughout a game.
Part of the reason Arial is so dominant is because it's proportioned the same as Helvetica, meaning it can be swapped in to avoid licensing fees without affecting document layout.
Serif fonts were used in print media for ages but when computers came around sans serif became significantly more popular as no longer was there the legibility concern with dodgy pigment applicators etc.
People started to switch to sans serif fonts more and more and would seek out an alternative to the widely defaulted Times New Roman in early days. They'd open the alphebetically sorted fonts list and what did they see at the top?
Arial.
Keep in mind, when personal computing started out, we didn't have a ton of fonts packaged with the system to start with. Just a handful. Arial has pretty much always been there.
The general public was often using Times New Roman or whatever their system's default sans serif font was.
But, designers have cared about things like this for a very long time (ages, as you said.) Arial is joined at the hip with Helvetica, which got a movie[1] because of it's massive cultural impact and it's praise within design circles.
Among professional designers, there were very strong opinions on Helvetica and Arial--almost fever pitch at times. iirc, Arial exists do to the popularity of Helvetica and the background of this goes back to the 1950s. It wasn't just where it was placed in the font selection menu, it was given top billing in that menu deliberately (in Windows.) If you're interested, I think the Wikipedia page for Helvetica (Font)[2] covers it fairly deeply.
That all said, I haven't heard it hotly debated for some time now. The explosion of freely available fonts; popularity of new font families like Open Sans, Noto Sans, etc; and the ability to add custom fonts on the web seems to have slowly killed off the discourse in the last decade or so. I'm not in those design circles as often anymore, though.
Ah yeah I had totally forgotten about Helvetica having such a history. Though I wonder what you mean by putting Arial in that position deliberately - if it was alphabetical (which I remember it being) do you mean that Arial was named as such that it started with A?
I don't mean that it was literally named for the dropdown, just that generally Helvetica was the cause and Arial was the effect. From what I know, it goes back earlier to when Monotype was providing fonts for IBM printers.
From what I know, Monotype was responsible for the name Arial (although IBM called the family Sonoran Sans Serif.) But, even at that point, the intent was to create something that would stand in for Helvetica.
I don't know that the name was selected deliberately to be ahead of Helvetica. But, it's not unheard of in branding to put your product ahead of or near the competition alphabetically. (It was especially important then because people were manually looking up things in phone books and libraries.) I wouldn't be surprised to hear that aspect was considered during naming.
> I don't think any designer has cared about that in the last 30 years. Perhaps not ever.
Not true at all. For instance, Arial was/is typically used as the fallback font for Windows users visiting a website that relied on system sans-serif fonts, while Helvetica shipped with OSX and would be prioritized for those lucky users.
Arial would be chosen by Windows users as good enough because they were already locked in a prison of bad design and terrible typeface rendering anyway, and didn't have other sensible options installed by default.
My point is not that font substitution never happens (it quite clearly does). My point is that no print designer has ever thought "yes, I want Helvetica here, and sometimes we won't pay for Helvetica so sometimes it will look like Arial, and this is what I want". Probably back in the days of PostScript built-in fonts and font cartridges some people thought about that. But since TrueType and embedded fonts happened, I don't think a single designer has ever given a shit about these two fonts being metric-compatible instead of just, you know, picking one and designing with it.
Web design is its own beast and any web designer who wasn't designing, from day one, for different fonts possibly being used without even any regard for metric compatibility wasn't doing their job.
Sure ya, but I don't think it was implied that anyone was talking specifically about metric compatibility exclusively for print design though, just "metrics" compatibility for design in general, specifically game UI, which could be other kinds of documents transferred between people with varying fonts and OS installed
Sure but spacing shouldn't matter for multilingual games as you already make it dynamic for the local lang, aka why speed runners use certain locals. also some games that pack their own font let you throw a font file in the local path of the game to override the packaged font.
That is true for English games, but the vast majority of Japanese games use the same 3 or 4 fonts. Often they give the user the ability to change it. Or they just write menu systems in English if they want to stylise it.
Why don't they pay someone to make a very similar looking font? Font design is not protected by copyright, and most fonts are also not protected by design patents as far as I know.
If you are creating a work of art that depends on a continued business relationship with others, especially one without solid contracts that won't let them change pricing on you, then you have no one else to blame but yourself.
The chart on page 24 gives the very first division of the US phone into area codes, many of which have of course remained unchanged today.
From page 82, when discussing automated in-band signaling on the phone lines:
> The signal component is a band about 100 cycles [Hz] wide centering on the signal frequency [2600 Hz]. [...] In the talking condition (tone off in both directions) the guard detector sensitivity is such that almost a pure tone is required to operate the receiver since other than signal frequencies will produce a voltage opposing its operation. The guard feature prevents false operation of the receiver from speech signals.
Of course in hindsight, the flaw in this is obvious. The guard band prevents accidental triggering of the signal mechanism by ordinary speech. It does nothing to stop someone from intentionally playing a pure 2600 Hz tone into the telephone handset, using e.g. a whistle from a cereal box.
reply