Listen, the CT is a joke and I’m not defending it. I’m pushing back on provably false information regarding towing and what to expect from a tow hitch. People get killed believing this kind of bullshit. You absolutely SHOULD NOT expect a tow hitch to be able to stand up the vehicles tow capacity rating. Ever. Even transiently.

They went to great lengths to explain that and why a trailer load may transiently exceed it

Transiently, as in for mere moments, exceeding the 1,000lb hitch rating yes, absolutely. Expecting that the hitch will suddenly experience (and hold) the entirety of the tow capcity rating? Absolutely not. That’s the exact opposite of the SAE spec. You’d also dramatically exceed the payload rating of every passenger vehicle in existence if it happened.

The other concern they mentioned was aluminum characteristics over time.

Better not look at the suspension of any passenger vehicle made in the last 30 years then.

No one else in the industry will use aluminum for the frame

The CT is unibody, it doesn’t have a frame. This isn’t me being pedantic either. The difference between the two is fairly important.

They even admit it fared better than they thought

The CT exceeded it’s rating by 8 times. Yes the Dodge 2500 did better but so what? It too was well over it’s hitch and payload ratings and if you tried to drive it with that kind of weight you’d quickly crash because you couldn’t steer or stop.

And to say, no one expects a thing to do the job that thing is made to do is a dumb comeback.

It’s NOT expected to. The SAE has literal standards for this and nowhere in them are you going to find that the tongue needs to support the entirety of the towed weight. In fact it’s quite the opposite. None of you know this though because you’ve never bothered reading them.

Also, what is the point of fighting this?

Because people read this bullshit and then repeat it just like you’re doing now. Tons of weight rolling down the road is dangerous. As always the regulations are literally written in blood.

You absolutely should NOT expect your tow hitch to support the entire weight of the trailer. It’s NOT in the SAE specs and frankly there’s no passenger vehicle in existence that will tolerate that without dramatically exceeding it’s payload rating. You probably don’t now what is either but when you exceed it you get broken axles, inability to steer, inability to stop, tires blowing up, suspension failure, and structure failure.

Ever seen a truck pulling a camper and the trucks headlights are aimed at the sky while the hitch is nearly dragging the ground? That’s what happens when you have too much tongue weight. You can see that’s it wrong and yet here’s another army of people trying to argue that its just fine because they listened to another youtuber who has no idea WTF they’re talking about.

It’s wrong and it gets people killed. Stop it.

I…just…what…I…I…I…

Awww fuck this.

Benjamin go get the musket!

Yes Republicans. Grab that 3rd rail and hold it tightly!

Then the video is plain wrong in regards to tongue vs tow weight. No truck or trailer manufacturer anywhere in the world adheres to that.

I commonly tow a triple axle trailer that weighs 12,000 pounds with my GMC Sierra 2500HD. That much weight would snap the receiver off and bend the frame if the hitch had to support it all.

The CT is for clowns but that video is stupid and should be disregarded.

It’s difficult to imagine a group of people voluntarily amassing and then using the resources necessary for “AI” absent the desire to cash in on their investment.

No imagination necessary.

I mean Dmitry Pospelov was arguing for AI control in the Soviet Union clear back in the 70s.

and try to slam your site with like 200+ requests per second

Your solution would do nothing to stop the crawlers that are operating 10ish rps. There’s ones out there operating at a mere 2rps but when multiple companies are doing it at the same time 24x7x365 it adds up.

Some incredibly talented people have been battling this since last year and your solution has been tried multiple times. It’s not effective in all instances and can require a LOT of manual intervention and SysAdmin time.

https://thelibre.news/foss-infrastructure-is-under-attack-by-ai-companies/

PoW uses a lot of electricity on the client side so environmentally it’s a poor solution, especially at scale.

There are residential IP providers that provide services to scrapers, etc. that involves them having thousands of IPs available from the same IP ranges as real users.

Now that makes sense. I hadn’t considered rogue ISPs.

Sure, network blocking like this has been a thing for decades but it still requires ongoing manual intervention which is what these SysAdmins are complaining about.

fail2ban

I’m familiar with f2b. I even have several clients licensed with the commercial version but it doesn’t fit this use case as there’s no logon failure for it to work with.

I automatically ban any IP that comes from outside the US because there’s literally no reason for anyone outside the US to make requests to my infra.

I have systems setup with geo-blocking but it’s of limited use due to the prevalence of VPNs.

also, use a WAF on a NAT to expose your apps.

This isn’t a solution either because a WAF has no way to know what traffic is bad so it doesn’t know what to block.

PoW has the advantage of being anonymous but I don’t like it as solution for the simple fact that it uses more electricity. It’s just not a very green solution.

Unsigned traffic = drop. Signed traffic that becomes an annoyance = drop. If signed traffic becomes more than an annoyance then you know who to report to the authorities and even in Brazil there’s authorities.

What will happen is that politicians will see this as another reason to push for everyone having their ID associated with their Internet traffic.

Yes, because like or not that’s the only possible solution. If all traffic was required to be signed and the signatures were tied to an entity then you could refuse unsigned traffic and if signed traffic was causing problems you’d know who it was and have recourse.

I don’t like this solution but it’s the only way forward that I can see.

what would be the solution?

Simple, not allowing anonymous activity. If everything was required to be crypto-graphically signed in such a way that it was tied to a known entity then this could be directly addressed. It’s essentially the same problem that e-mail has with SPAM and not allowing anonymous traffic would mostly solve that problem as well.

Of course many internet users would (rightfully) fight that solution tooth and nail.

I too read Drew DeVault’s article the other day and I’m still wondering how the hell these companies have access to “tens of thousands” of unique IP addresses. Seriously, how the hell do they have access to so many IP addresses that SysAdmins are resorting to banning entire countries to make it stop?

It’s referred to as “structural adhesive” and it’s used by everyone from Ferrari to Lockheed-Martin.

Honestly nearly every vehicle on the road and plane in the air uses structural adhesive. The problem here is with Tesla, not the technology.

I believe you completely about all these checks and balances

This isn’t a “checks and balances” thing. The Governor of Minnesota has the authority to order actual military firepower, like tanks and helicopters, to maintain order at the facility.

What makes you think Walz would be any different?

Hochul is a corrupt hack, Walz is not.

its “how will you stop him”.

The State of Minnesota has its own force capabilities. Tim Walz could ring the facility with State Guard, order tanks to sit in the parking lot, and have combat helicopters flying over the facility 24x7. THAT is how its stopped. The State of Minnesota isn’t a Court, it actually has the ability to enforce things using military firepower.

I don’t really see him presenting much of a problem.

People like you really aren’t worth talking too. Sure bub, a Governor isn’t much a problem. Uh huh.

I want to believe that proper protocol will be followed

This isn’t a matter of “following the proper protocol” it’s that there is NO protocol. The action is specifically prohibited by law and is enforceable by a political enemy of President Trump. People comment about “A court has no ability to enforce it’s decisions.” but in this case it’s a STATE and they DO have the ability to enforce a decision.