pauljara · HackerTrans

12 ay öncediscuss

Neither really, though my ISP's router would allow me to assign IPs by MAC address so they're effectively reserved to a device. The router's web UI displayed a list of devices. I wanted to see if devices would start dropping off this list as soon as the DHCP lease time expired. When they did drop off this list, I had thought they reappeared with the same IP without me explicitly using the reservation functionality. So how was this happening? I figured the web UI might not be showing the full picture of all the data about devices; that the router held records of formerly connected devices beyond the DHCP lease time for some unknown reason.

pauljara

12 ay öncediscuss

I was trying to determine if a lease expired, if my router would immediately try to lease that same IP out to another machine on the network. It felt like it cached an expired lease mapping and would try to keep that old IP un-leased in case the original machine to which it was mapped came back online. I was just trying to better understand the behaviour.

pauljara

12 ay öncediscuss

This used to happen to my MacBook Pro, although it was a non Apple Silicon one. The issue was that I had changed the DHCP lease time on my router from the default to a really low value. I believe I had set it to 15 minutes. What I believe was happening was the MBP was waking up to renew its IP address every 15 minutes and by the time it went to sleep again, it was probably waking back up to repeat the process. Changing the value on the router back to its default completely fixed the battery drain issue on my MacBook Pro. I'd never have guessed the cause-effect except I made the change around the same time I purchased that new MacBook Pro and was paying more attention to any issues that might arise.

pauljara

12 ay öncediscuss

I've spent my career working with great marketers and I don't think any single one of them would advocate for the approach that Sig Sauer took with that stupid "It Ends Today" campaign. In fact, I'm sure all of them would have recommended the exact opposite.

They should very quickly pivot to a "It [100% Safety] Starts Today" remedial campaign admitting there's a problem, following-up with full transparency about how they plan to reorient their organization to make the situation better, then providing frequent proof of progress towards the safety goal. There's a critical window for them to turn this from a crisis that might sink the US division of the company to one that serves as the basis for why they were compelled to adopt safety-first design processes for their guns.

This is their version of the [1982 Tylenol Crisis](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/tylenol-murders-1982) but they've really fumbled the ball so far.

pauljara

12 ay öncediscuss

I'm a recently licensed firearms owner from Canada and as part of the safety training part of the licensing process, I became aware of how unsafe the P320 seemed to be. It really feels like that model needs to be taken off-market, undergo significant redesign, and for Sig's marketing sake, probably re-emerge as some new model like the SP321 where the S stands for "safety" :-)

What I'm not as familiar with is why hasn't Sig done this? It really feels like they've been doing ad-hoc patch design adjustments to a fundamentally unsafe design at this point. But I'm also not very knowledgeable about firearms yet.

comments