Well unless you live in New Zealand this specific case doesn’t affect you.

However, it doesn’t mean that you must have a schedule. Uber could choose to do that but what it does mean is that in New Zealand you could gain the same worker protections of that country, including benefits, pay, paid time off, etc. as applicable to the country’s laws, if the ruling expanded to everyone in that country instead of the 4 people that sued.

The problem is that even if everybody started fucking now, it wouldn’t change the fact that many countries including China are on pace to not be able to even maintain their current GDP in the 2030’s and other than doing something to replace human labor (bringing people in or automation) to maintain or increase their GDP, there is nothing else they can do. It is too late.

Everyone is in trouble here but some are worse off than others. Especially when they’re going to have to figure out what to do with people that will be aging out of the workforce.

United only instituted a family seating policy last year so that people with kids under 12 could freely pick seats next to each other.

So I don’t get all this. Everything I buy tickets, I choose my seats unless I fly southwest. And even they are going to move to assigned seats.

At least when my kids were young, you’d have to pay extra to pick a seat, at least if you purchased through Expedia or Travelocity.

And if so, do they not seat everyone in your reservation together?

You know how you print your boarding pass and it has your seats? When my kids were young on multiple trips via United, AA and Delta, the boarding pass would not have a seat assignment and we’d have to go the gate agent at every gate, even on the same airline if it was not a direct flight and get our seats assigned last minute. So no, we weren’t always seated together. On one flight, none of us were in the same row with anyone in our family.

Since we were scraping by back then we always booked months in advance for cheaper tickets. I thought originally it was a fluke with just United but after the next trip, I had learned to pay extra and pick seats ahead of time.

Here in California, my annual bill is a little over $6500/year, so $540ish/month. I can only use one company and the PUC is about to approve yet another rate increase again (they’ve never been rejected).

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.