Is the internet still kept in Big Ben?
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
47053 readers
1331 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, unless Jen needs to borrow it for a presentation.
Iβm actually going to that conference! Whatβs the title of your talk? Iβll be sure to attend it!
Excellent. I'm on Stage 4 on the Thursday afternoon: "Brewing Tea Over The Internet".
Should be fun times, see you there.
Are you by any chance, British?
What a British thing to ask. Very apt sir, very apt.
Did the predilection for tea give me away?
I need an ELI5 for this I'm a stupid Gen Z
I need one too and I'm a stupid Gen Y
As a late millennial and a programmer, I've got you.
So when you request a web page, before anything else, the server gives you a 3 digit status code.
100s means you asked for metadata
200s mean it went ok
300s means you need to go somewhere else (like for login, or because we moved things around)
400s mean you messed up
500s mean I messed up
So this is in the 400s. Each specific code means something - you've probably seen 404, which means you asked for a page that isn't there. And maybe 405, which means you're not allowed to see this
418 means you asked for coffee, but I'm a teapot
I can't say enough how amazing your explanation was. Im not a programmer but I have worked on websites (self taught) and I never knew this. Thank you!
What's the process for submitting RFCs? And how do they pick which joke RFC they'll publish? That's a meeting I'd like to be a fly on the wall of
For "real" RFCs that aren't Apr 1st jokes, there's an independent submissions track for the public to write Internet-Drafts and then submit them into the review process.
With the joke RFCs, they get emailed straight to the editor at least two weeks beforehand. I'm not privy to the selection meeting, but I expect it's fun.
I don't have any questions but holy shit this is so cool.
I've heard that the internet is a series of tubes.
Can you confirm?
I never understood the beef people had with that. The Internet is a series of tubes, of various widths and sizes, with inputs at random points in the stream.
Plumbing analogies are apt.
Was RFC 7168 written with Captain Picard's tea Earl Gray, hot in mind? If not, are follow up modifications planned?
So replicators are kind of a special case: they can make anything already fully prepared, without the need for a brewing command to be sent. It's possible that by the 24th century, there's a compatibility layer between Replicator Intermediate Language and HTCPCP, but I'll leave that to future generations to establish.
Well there is really only one question...
Pineapple on Pizza?
Yes, obviously. Where else should it be at if not my pizza?
Getting really tired of this meme
Out.
Can't stand pineapple at the best of times, on pizza is another level of wrong.
Hear hear
You can unilaterally create another status code. What do you create?
I quite like the idea of HTTP 256 Binary Data Follows, which is just 200 OK but you asked for a non-text content type file.
Wasn't there a new HTTP action recently proposed for "This is a JSON RPC request that we've convinced ourselves is actually REST and we've been using POST and someone finally pointed out that that was stupid"?
Not a new status code but still vaguely amusing.
A new RFC for IPv7. It's just IPv4 with an extra octet. Yes or no?
I don't think the extra address space of IPv6 is the problem holding back its adoption, so "IPv4 with another octet" would likely run into the same issues.
Not that it's a bad idea, it's just an idea that's unlikely to catch on.
What would you say is holding IPv6 back?
The biggest problem IPv6 has is that IPv4 has been so hugely successful: gargantuan resources have been poured into getting the world connected on IPv4, and the routers/etc deployed in the field (especially in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and other places which got the Internet late) are built around version 4: data paths 32 bits wide, ASICs and firmware developed with 4-byte offsets, and so on.
It's a big effort, and more importantly an expensive effort, to move all that infrastructure over for what the end user perceives as no benefit: their websites load just the same as before.
Are you saying thereβs no financial incentive at the individual level to upgrade?
Essentially. If the end user is being asked to make a financial outlay to get to the same things they did before, it's unlikely that will go down well.
What a fun AMA topic lol. I dont have a question, I'm just glad youre here, spreading the good gospel of your goofy internet standard
Do you regret adding it, or with the knowledge you have today, would you still add the 418?
Since a bunch of languages have not implemented it, or/and has long discussions about it:
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/15650
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/21326
https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/14644
https://github.com/psf/requests/issues/4238
https://github.com/aspnet/HttpAbstractions/issues/915
Sheesh, some people have no sense of humour.
Personally I don't have any problems with it (if that was directed at me) - I've added 418 as "unhandled exception code" response to a bunch of applications, so I can easily differentiate whether my application is throwing an error, or whether it's some middleware gateway AWS io-thing
I was just curious what OP thought about it, since in the early days it wasn't uncommon to add goofs or easter-eggs into software, but nowadays not done so much... and apparently the "HTTP Working Group" doesn't like it either... So I was curious whether OP though in hindsight whether it should've been added or not
How can it be unhandled? It's right there in the song, just before the spout!
You'd have to catch up with Mr Masinter to get his opinion on adding error 418, I'm afraid; that piece of the business wasn't my work.
I'm happy it's there though: it may have sparked flamewars, but at this point what hasn't. It does bring somewhat of that sense of humanity to the whole enterprise of working on the Internet.
I remember when I learned about this, I was working on an absurdly large project on my own. I was lost in all the details and losing hope of ever finishing. I was working on the backend API when I learned of this and took the time to implement the 418 response. It felt silly and brought the fun back to the project.
I remember when I first learned of error 418 and it did really help me understand that the Internet as we know it was made and shaped by regular people with senses of humor. Helped make it seem a bit less daunting/intimidating to understand.
It reminds me of how the Network Port 666 is specifically reserved for doom, always love Easter eggs like that in officially used protocols.
I'm just finding out about this trivia now but I'm a big fan
view more: next βΊ