Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | gertrunde's commentslogin

Basic version is it's a sort of developer focused zero trust network service.

Encrypted overlay network based on wireguard tunnels, with network ACLs based around identity, and with lots of nice quality-of-life features, like DNS that just works and a bunch of other stuff.

(Other stuff = internet egress from your tailscale network ('tailnet') through any chosen node, or feeding inbound traffic from a public IP to a chosen node, SSH tied into the network authentication.

There is also https://github.com/juanfont/headscale - which is a open source implementation of some of tailscale's server side stuff, compatible with the normal tailscale clients.

(And there are clients for a very wide range of stuff).


I can’t tell if you’re trying to help, or just getting into the spirit of the website’s “how it works (using ten pages of terminology and acronyms we just made up)” page.

None of the terminology or acronyms that user used were made up or unique to this. I think you are blaming other people for your unfamiliarity with this kind of tech.

It is simply a managed service that lets you hook devices up to an overlay network, in which they can communicate easily with each other just as though they were on a LAN even if they are far apart.

For example, if you have a server you'd like to be able to SSH into on your home network, but you don't want to expose it to the internet, you can add both it and your laptop to a Tailscale network and then your laptop can connect directly to it over the Tailscale network no different than if you were at home.


Sorry if I appeared rude. That was very much tongue in cheek.

But notice how you just did a much better job of explaining what this thing does without using any jargon at all. The jargon helps if everyone already knows what you’re talking about. It hurts if anyone doesn’t.

That’s what I’m poking fun at. There’s a trait in lots of engineers I’ve worked with over the years to be almost afraid to talk about tech stuff in layman terms. Like they’re worried that someone will think less of them because they used words instead of an acronym. Like they won’t get credit for knowing what a zero trust network is if they describe the concept in a way that regular people might understand.

One of those guys was certainly in charge of this company’s website copy.


> But notice how you just did a much better job of explaining what this thing does without using any jargon at all.

There was plenty of jargon and acronyms like LAN and SSH. You're just used to those ones.


Perhaps if we were on Reddit, and also on a general subreddit, then people would speak in less technical terms.

Since this is HN, it’s almost expected the participants here would either know the terms, or at the very least be able to find out what they mean on their own and realize it’s not made up jargon but rather common industry terms.

Tailscale is not trying to sell to the average buyer, it’s trying to sell to a specific audience.


> Like they won’t get credit for knowing what a zero trust network is if they describe the concept in a way that regular people might understand.

I've been trying to get a definition of zero trust at $client from the security people who are pushing tools onto our platform, so we can have an honest conversation around threats and risks, and finding the best balance of tools, techniques and processes to achieve their desired outcomes.

Unfortunately, it seems like everybody just want "zero trust" because a vendor sold them on that idea and they gave money to the vendor, so now there's the need to justify that expense and "extract value" from the tool - even if it may in fact be worse than the controls that are already in place.


Your ignorance of the topic is no excuse to be rude to someone who's trying to help you.

That's just networking jargon

Possibly one of the better known (and widely used?) implementations is Microsoft's PhotoDNA, that may be a suitable starting point.


"AI Overviews now have 2 billion users every month."

"Users"? Or people that get presented with it and ignore it?


Maybe you ignore it, but Google has stated in the past that click-through rates with AI overviews are way down. To me, that implies the 'user' read the summary and got what they needed, such that they didn't feel the need to dig into a further site (ignoring whether that's a good thing or not).

I'd be comfortable calling a 'user' anyone who clicked to expand the little summary. Not sure what else you'd call them.


You're right, I'm probably being a little uncharitable!

Normal users (i.e. not grumpy techies ;) ) probably just go with the flow rather than finding it irritating.


They're a bit less bad than they used to be. I'm not exactly happy about what this means to incentives (and rewards) for doing research and writing good content, but sometimes I ask a dumb question out of curiosity and Google overview will give it to me (e.g. "what's in flower food?"). I don't need GPT 5.1 Thinking for that.


"Since then, it’s been incredible to see how much people love it. AI Overviews now have 2 billion users every month."

Cringe. To get to 2 billion a month they must be counting anyone who sees an AI overview as a user. They should just go ahead and claim the "most quickly adopted product in history" as well.



I knew a charity group many years ago that targeted this issue.

They noticed that aid charities would give modern motorcycles to rural medical workers that rapidly ended up in a non-working state.

So they gathered older motorbikes, more suitable and more repairable in the destination country, and spent time training the end users in maintenance and upkeep, and ongoing support.


Not an uncommon problem with charities working with foreign nations. They fail to capture the local populations because they think of these problems in a vacuum.

Person lacks reliable transportation -> give them some -> problem solved

There's another example - a charity provides treated mosquito nets for free to millions of families in Africa. Great!

People lack reliable mosquito protection -> give them treated nets -> problem solved!

But in reality it went like this:

People lack reliable mosquito protection -> give them treated nets -> many of these families are starving -> fine mesh nets are great at catching small fish -> all their food is now infected with insecticide, mosquitos continue to access the family as well


Givewell did an analysis and concluded that while this is a problem, it's not nearly enough to offset the benefit which comes from using the nets for their intended purpose: https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/in...

Certainly improving public health in developing countries is a hard problem! But it's not impossible and existing efforts have had an effect.


That was exactly the goal with the Buffalo Bicycle project, and I'd say it worked pretty well. Make a bike that's mechanically simple & reliable, maintainable with common tools, and train technicians to fix and upkeep them. Basically create the Toyota Landcruiser of bikes. I kind of want one, even though it's a "bad" bike by the standards of most western audiences (heavy, slow, ugly, etc)

https://buffaloride.org/buffalobicycle https://worldbicyclerelief.org/product-development/


It was quite interesting in the UK when the smoking ban kicked in for public places, and how many pubs needed this sort of treatment once people stopped actively smoking in the premises, as without the active smoke to mask it people noticed that the place was actually a bit nasty.


Isopropyl alcohol works well too.


I do wonder if this is in any way linked to the ongoing enshittification of imgur, and the recent associated user revolt (link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45102905 ).


Previous discussion of Scryer Prolog (in 2021):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966133


Probably the one thing I find most frustrating about these current unicode emojis is that they have been extended/evolved so far now that they fail to fulfil their original purpose.

Original purpose: simple/clear way to convey an emotional context to text

Current result: "What the heck is does face even mean?" or "Let's use these symbols as the basic for unintelligible slang."

(Bonus extra issue: Different implementations with subtly different images that imply a slightly different emotional context)

More often than not, I tend to default to basic old text emoticons, as it more clearly expresses the intent.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: