I was born after 1980. It isn’t definitely generation x because the definition has changed since millennials were called generation y/why. So a person born in 1981 would have been 28 years old in 2009. It doesn’t change anything.

If millinial births start in 1980 then a millinial could have been 29 in 2009.

I bought my house in 2009 and I was really lucky because I wouldn’t have been able to afford one precrash. It was actually cheaper to have a mortgage on a house than rent in many 2 bedroom 800 sq. Ft. apartments in my area. Cheaper than some 1 bedrooms in certain areas around here.

For a few years after 2009 interest rates and prices were low enough much more affordable than now.

My situation then is not the situation most millennials find themselves in just a few short years after and certainly not now, especially since I’m an old ass millinial.

I make 6 times what I did when I bought my house and my means is roughly the same plus a car payment basically. My house is worth much much more than what I mortgaged.

A million back then could have given you a lot, lot more structure and a lot more land. Now it’ll get you around a 2700 sq. ft. house on an 4th of an acre in a neighborhood in my area. Less than an hour down the road you’ll get a shitbox in the hood.

This article is just full of so much shit relative to the normal person. But then that’s not the target audience. It’s just there so Gen Xers and Boomers will continue to subscribe and just drives the “if millinial weren’t stupid and lazy they’d have the same opportunities as we did.” propaganda.

If we’re doing Wikipedia as the sole citation then:

In 1806, Webster published his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. By 1807, he began work on a more extensive dictionary, An American Dictionary of the English Language, which took twenty-six years to complete. To evaluate the etymology of words, Webster learned twenty-eight languages, including Old English, Gothic, German, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, Welsh, Russian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit. His goal was to standardize American English, which varied widely across the country. They also spelled, pronounced, and used English words differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster#Blue-backed_speller

As time went on, Webster changed the spellings in the book to more phonetic ones. Most of them already existed as alternative spellings.[34] He chose spellings such as defense, color, and traveler, and changed the re to er in words such as center. He also changed tongue to the older spelling tung, but this did not catch on.

Furthermore your quote doesn’t actually have a relevant citation:

He was very influential in popularizing certain spellings in the United States, but he did not originate them. Rather […] he chose already existing options such as center, color and check for the simplicity, analogy or etymology”

Though in context of the previous paragraph seems to imply that this was an opinion that the wikipedia article came to simply because there was a previous work that argued specifically for ‘or’ in place of ‘our’ but again, it appears to simply be their opinion based on an assumption.

Nah, Webster really did drop the ‘u’ and changed a lot of spelling. He also learned a lot of languages since back then there were many, many different languages/dialects in America at the time and he wanted to make it easier as he changed spellings, such as swapping ‘re’ to ‘er’ for phonetics. There was also a lot of anti-British sentiment at the time of course which certainly would have motivated acceptance.

Webster is definitely also credited for this in histories and not newspapers outside of anecdotes.

Noah Webster dropped the ‘u’ on words as well as otherwise changed the spelling of many words in ‘American’ English.

It doesn’t change what Disney tried to do to get out of it.

a stack of 18650s

(you probably already know) but this is common in a lot of battery packs. Batteries for power tools are good sources for the 18650s too. I never checked but I saw someone open a Tesla car battery and they look like a bunch of 18650s inside too.

I refurbish my power tool batteries instead of buying new ones because it is so easy.

Having a NAT on a consumer router is indeed the norm. I don’t even see how you could say it is not.

I never said NAT = security. As a matter of fact, I even said

It was not designed for security but coincidentally blah blah

But hey, strawmanning didn’t stop your original comment to me either, so why stop there?

Let me tell you: All. Modern. Routers. include a stateful firewall.

I never even implied the opposite.

To Linux at least, NAT is just a special kind of firewall rule called masquerade.

Right, because masquerade is NAT…specifically Source NAT.

I’m just going to go ahead an unsubscribe from this conversation.

So, really, you were “correcting” me for you and your specific setup at the very beginning because your router’s firewall has a deny rule for all inbound connections because I must have been confusing what a NAT and what a firewall is because I must have been talking about your specific configuration on your specific devices.

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Are you saying that everyone’s router’s firewall drops all packets from connections that originate from outside of their network?

Because, as I said:

layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated.

The NAT doesn’t have to operate at layer 7 to be effective for this because

coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

The point is that the SPI firewalls are not protecting against the majority of the attacks we’ve seen for decades now from botnets and other arbitrary sources of attacks, except, perhaps targeted DDoSing which isn’t the big problems for most home networks. They must worry about having their OS’ and software exploited and owned in the background, which doesn’t get much of an assist from a router’s firewall.

Obviously, this is however true for the NAT since the NAT are going to drop connections originating from outside the network attempting to communicate with that software to exploit it

barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

They are not layer 7 firewalls for the network which are going to be where most the majority of attacks are concentrated. No citation needed unless you believe they are layer 7 firewalls or using something like Snort.

Added some clarification in my first sentence so it makes a bit of sense.

The word you are looking for is firewall not NAT.

No the word I’m looking for is the NAT. It was not designed for security but coincidentally it is doing the heavy lifting for home network security because it is dropping packets from connections originating from outside the network, barring of course, forwarded ports and DMZ hosts because the router has no idea where to route them.

Consumer router firewalls are generally trash, certainly aren’t layer 7 firewalls protecting from all the SMB, printer, AD, etc etc vulnerabilities and definitely are not doing the heavy lifting.

By and large automated attacks are not thwarted by the firewall but by the one-way NAT.

You’d better hope that you can NAT ipv6 because if you aren’t behind a CGNAT and then your LAN is completely exposed without a NAT you’re very likely going to have devices exploited.

NATs on people’s boundary has been doing pretty much all of the heavy lifting for everyone’s security at home.