[HN Gopher] Apple Maps location scan spikes WiFi latency every 6...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Maps location scan spikes WiFi latency every 60 seconds
Author : ivank
Score : 358 points
Date : 2022-05-12 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| alaricus wrote:
| That can't be good for the battery life.
| nojito wrote:
| The default battery claims have location services turned on.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I don't think this does anything if maps isn't running?
| urbandw311er wrote:
| Interestingly, when I went to Security Preferences there
| was an icon to show that Apple Maps had used my location in
| the last 24 hours. This is in spite of almost _never_ using
| Apple Maps on my MacBook, and certainly not in the last
| month. So this smells like some sort of background daemon
| or similar.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Hmm.
|
| Did you hop into a vehicle you have paired with
| bluetooth? Apple Maps drops a "parked car" pin
| automatically when you do, I think regardless of whether
| it was in use at the time.
|
| Maybe you used an app that uses an Apple Maps view?
|
| Do you have any of the drive-time/traffic condition
| widgets active in the lefthand thingy, or homescreen?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| While some platforms go through the Maps app to get the
| location, under macOS/iOS there's the locationd daemon
| that provides the location independently of any app.
| There, Maps is just a locationd consumer just like any
| other app requesting a location so Maps _shouldn 't_ be
| invoked in the background by non-Maps stuff. But perhaps
| Maps has a timed trigger to background update your cached
| location (so it can open up to the correct startup
| location instead of locating you after startup) or
| something similar.
| defen wrote:
| Is this the "weird WiFi latency on Mac OS" thread? I've got a
| WiFi network with a MacBook Pro (running 11.6 because I hate
| upgrading) and a System76 linux box (as well as lots of other
| devices). Both of the machines can ping a google dot com server
| (which is approximately 150 miles away, going by the hostname)
| consistently in the 8-12 ms range.
|
| Pinging the System76 box from the laptop, the latency varies from
| 2-250(!) ms. Pinging the laptop from the System76 box varies from
| 2-125ms.
|
| I don't even know where to start debugging that but the latency
| is driving me crazy.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I cannot replicate this on my M1 MBP running 12.3.1.
| can16358p wrote:
| Same. Have been trying for minutes with the same software
| running and on Wi-Fi. All pings around 4ms with no spikes at
| all.
| acchow wrote:
| Same. Not able to replicate on M1 MBA
|
| Aren't modern Wifi chips capable of holding two simultaneous
| connections (one for wifi, one for wifi-direct/Airdrop)?
| fragmede wrote:
| This happens on my M1 Macbook Air running 12.0.1 and is
| extremely evident when playing games on Stadia, unless location
| services is disabled.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Why are you still running 12.0.1?
| tda wrote:
| I noticed this too when I used steam to stream a game to my
| laptop over good wifi. Every minute it would stutter for a
| second. I set up iperf3 tests and noticed the wifi lag increasing
| every minute between my macbook and my server and between my
| windows desktop pc and my server (when connected over wifi). Of
| course no lag when using cables, so I reasoned it was wifi
| related, and had noting to do with my setup (I used different
| clients, and different AP's). I then took my macbook (only
| portable computer I had) it too a nearby coffee shop with good
| wifi and I could still measure lag spikes every minute. So then I
| was really puzzled, was there some rogue device interfering with
| wifi all over the neighborhood? Finally I found a suggestion to
| turn off location services (or whatever it is called), and the
| spikes disappeared. And I learnt that even when it is not used
| (not sure it the lid was closed) a macbook can cause significant
| interference to the wifi for all other nearby devices.
| tomxor wrote:
| > And I learnt that even when it is not used (not sure it the
| lid was closed) a macbook can cause significant interference to
| the wifi for all other nearby devices.
|
| My partner has an older MBP, I noticed this the last time she
| was forced to updated her OS a major version... the thing no
| longer sleeps when you tell it to or when you close the lid, it
| will stay connected to wifi and quite happily saturate the
| network downloading updates.
|
| Only way to be sure is to power off the stupid thing.
| code_duck wrote:
| My understanding is this is an issue with new features of all
| sorts of laptop/desktop devices.
|
| For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28639952
|
| "Do not leave XPS laptop in any sleep/hibernate/standby mode
| when placed in a bag" because they stay connected to wifi and
| may attempt to run updates etc when the user is not expecting
| or prepared for that, as far as cooling.
| astrange wrote:
| https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/turn-power-nap-
| on-o...
| tomxor wrote:
| Tried it, didn't work, I also dug out the old pmset command
| but it seems to have been neutered.
|
| I'm glad I stopped using Apple stuff 10 years ago, their
| macs are gradually devolving into iDevices.
| astrange wrote:
| Sleep isn't any different than it used to be.
|
| "pmset -g assertions" will show you why it thinks it's
| awake, it could be a silent video playing in a web
| browser or something. (and of course, if you can ssh in
| to run that it must be awake.)
| hoten wrote:
| Wow, I guess this is also why my local steam streaming (well, I
| use Moonlight but same difference) started lagging out of
| nowhere. I first noticed it 2 days ago, but before that I
| clocked 30 hours no problem, so I guess this is a brand new
| problem.
|
| Gonna try turning off all my Mac devices location services,
| thanks for the tip.
| [deleted]
| tda wrote:
| This was a few years ago on a 2015 MBP running Catalina or
| whatever came before that. My guess is the adaptive bandwidth
| algorithm acutely switches to a lower bandwidth due to the
| lag spike, and then slowly recovers in the ten seconds after.
| And then 50 seconds later it starts over again. I suspect if
| I could have manually set the streaming quality to a fixed
| value the lag spike would hardly not be noticable at all, but
| the constant switching of the stream quality is what actually
| caused chopiness. Same might be the case with the OP's zoom
| calls
| draebek wrote:
| People doing game streaming might be interested in this bug in
| the moonlight-qt repo that discusses people having this same
| problem, including various fixes: https://github.com/moonlight-
| stream/moonlight-qt/issues/159
| trafficante wrote:
| Can confirm that the scripts posted itt by vJan00 [0] solved
| the stuttering problems that were plaguing me 4-5 months ago.
| Didn't bother setting up a cronjob; I just toggle it on/off
| as needed.
|
| [0] https://github.com/moonlight-stream/moonlight-
| qt/issues/159#...
| ncann wrote:
| On Windows, there was an infamous Qt bug that also caused regular
| ping spike, so check it out if you have the issue and you also
| happen to be using a Qt program:
|
| https://bugreports.qt.io/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/QTBUG-...
| goodoldneon wrote:
| Location services in general seem to cause latency spikes for me.
| I just disabled the feature altogether
| gernb wrote:
| Is this why Airplay no longer works? As of MacOS 12.3 when I
| AirPlay from M1 to AppleTV every ~2 minutes it drops to ~1fps for
| ~30 seconds.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Look into issues with Dolby Atmos on AppleTV and your soundbar.
| robbomacrae wrote:
| As a means to keeping this feature on when out in public, but not
| have it cause latency spikes at home, is it possible to configure
| the router to block these requests from location services? Or do
| we need to setup each device to automatically disable location
| services when on the house wifi?
| lxgr wrote:
| Wifi positioning does not actively talk to the network you're
| connected to, but rather does a beacon frame sweep and then
| matches BSSIDs seen with some database.
|
| One side effect of this is that in order to scan all possible
| wifi channels, your baseband needs to tune to different
| frequencies at least for a short period of time.
|
| Theoretically this interval should be short enough to avoid any
| disruptions - practically that's apparently not always the
| case.
| a-dub wrote:
| lol. i wonder if it's quietly popping the nic out of the
| associated state, quickly scanning for aps and then jumping back
| where it left off without telling userland or the remote ap that
| anything happened...
| qwertywert_ wrote:
| Background scanning is a normal WiFi feature, you don't break
| association state when doing this. It is required for regular
| and fast roaming.
|
| Also it must be notifying userland it happened because location
| services is trying to gather that info.
|
| Most WiFi clients enable background scanning when signal
| strength is below some threshold, so you would never notice
| latency spikes unless connection is already poor.
| a-dub wrote:
| interesting. so they just switch it on even when the signal
| is strong.
|
| > Most WiFi clients enable background scanning when signal
| strength is below some threshold, so you would never notice
| latency spikes unless connection is already poor.
|
| i assume s/unless/because/ ?
| dpcx wrote:
| I just tried this myself and can't replicate on a 2019 i7 running
| Big Sur. I wonder if it's related to the number of Wifi networks
| in range (mine is the only one)... Also, the Apple Maps thing
| didn't seem to change anything for me, either.
| foobarian wrote:
| Environment can have huge impact on this. With a larger number
| of devices, there could be more collisions, increasing traffic
| more than linearly, and then in case of scanning traffic, the
| modulation used would likely be the lowest available which
| means the packets take up a lot of wall clock time. So a
| broadcast storm with collisions, retries, at the lowest bitrate
| = brief outage.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I wonder why they keep rescanning the wifi environment even
| though the fact that it remains connected to the same BSSID and
| the RSSI doesn't fluctuate too much should suggest that it's very
| unlikely the device moved far enough to warrant another scan.
| tedunangst wrote:
| locationd probably wasn't tracking that state. Maybe now it is.
| TSiege wrote:
| portable wifi? edge case, but its possible this was the fix for
| it
| Bud wrote:
| You're forgetting how sensitive this location detection is,
| these days. Let's say you are moving in a direction roughly
| parallel to the circle carved out by a given signal strength.
| You could move quite a long ways without RSSI fluctuating much.
| Zelizz wrote:
| My anecdotal experience (partially informed by working on the
| Windows Wi-Fi team) is that iOS/macOS are more aggressive about
| switching APs. It's a tradeoff - on one hand, you can have
| disruptive scans like this, but on the other, if it results in
| switching to a better network during a long period when the
| user is stationary, it can result in a better experience.
|
| It also depends a lot on what your hardware is, whether you're
| doing a full scan or a partial scan, whether you have more than
| one NIC etc, etc.
| not2b wrote:
| "better experience" only if you aren't doing something
| latency-sensitive, like a video call.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Video calls aren't hyper latency sensitive, there is
| already a lot of latency in encoding and processing
| effects. I'd imagine this could be most disruptive to video
| games but this isn't a market Apple has done much to work
| with.
| [deleted]
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Maybe it wasn't a problem worth fixing at the time? Maybe
| they'll do exactly this in future versions of the location
| finder stack.
|
| Edit: somebody pointed out that these scans could be for
| roaming purposes as well. Maybe there is another access point
| with a better signal and it's time to move?
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Ok that sucks. If they do a scan, at least use the radio that's
| not in use so it doesn't affect the one communicating (e.g. use
| 2.4 Ghz when you're connected on 5).. That would be a good way to
| avoid this latency hit.
|
| Also, I'm assuming Maps only does this when it's open, but
| Apple's annoying tendency to keep an app running when you close
| the last window (with the exception of system preferences and a
| few others) makes this very hard to diagnose. While I still used
| Macs a lot I would always close apps with Command-Q for that
| reason. This behaviour would exacerbate the problem as the user
| isn't aware that the app is stil running.
|
| Apple's reasoning is I believe to "not worry about open apps, the
| OS will handle it". But it doesn't always, I often get prompts
| that my memory is full and I have to close something now or
| else... And that is with me being rigorous closing apps. My work
| buys only base level machines with standard ram, unfortunately.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Often the antenna is shared - its a relatively large physical
| thing. And it can't really be shared except time-shared I
| believe.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| The frequencies are different enough for it to be possible
| technically. The same way mobile phones can be active on
| multiple bands at the same time. But indeed the used chipset
| may not support it.
|
| It's something I would expect Apple to have taken advantage
| of though, as they own both the hardware and the software.
| cmckn wrote:
| > Apple's annoying tendency to keep an app running when you
| close the last window
|
| This is...just how macOS works. Windows applications
| (generally) tie their lifecycle to the existence of a window,
| but Macs have a different paradigm: the program can live
| without any windows. Pretty much every Mac app behaves this
| way. It's been this way as long as I can remember.
|
| iOS is different; you can force close an app with the app
| switcher, but the OS generally encourages you to leave things
| "open" and the OS will periodically wake your process so it can
| perform various tasks. The OS is very stingy about how much
| work your process can do when it's in the background in this
| way. This is one of the challenges when developing for iOS, for
| sure.
| daveidol wrote:
| Yeah, I think OP is right that this behavior is confusing
| _for Windows users_ , but as a longtime macOS user I don't
| find it confusing or problematic at all.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I'm more a unix user than a Windows user. I use all OSes
| (including Mac and Windows) on a daily basis but FreeBSD is
| my daily driver. I think macOS is pretty unique in this
| regard (as well as being the only that use Meta-C / Meta-V
| for copy/paste, something that still bites me every day as
| I switch between OSes :) ).
|
| But I only used macOS since 10.2, never used classic.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Not just Windows though. *nix also.
|
| But yes I know it's just how macOS works. I never really got
| used to it except that it ingrained "Command-Q" into my
| muscle memory :)
|
| But I mean this uniqueness to macOS is causing this to cause
| unintended side-effects. While working in Apple Maps, I
| imagine the user would not care so much about latency issues
| and the location tracking would be useful. By the app
| shouldn't do it while it's not actively being used IMO, as
| long as there is no way to avoid the latency.
|
| I wonder if the same happens with Apple's own FaceTime by the
| way, or if they made an exception for that :)
| hamter wrote:
| it's location services, not apple maps.
| hotfixguru wrote:
| This have happened since 12.3.1 at the office for me (not at home
| though). Hope this resolves it.
| kylecordes wrote:
| I noticed this when using a meeting/streaming tool that detected
| these bits of latency and went in to a degraded mode, even with
| abundant bandwidth available.
|
| I tried the various settings for avoiding it, discussed in many
| other comments here. The only thing that worked for me: get out a
| USB ethernet adapter and a long wire, don't use WiFi when doing
| things where it matters.
|
| ... which is ridiculous; I don't want or need location scans at
| all, I am sitting stationary in my home office.
| daneel_w wrote:
| A bit of a clickbait-y tweet. Exact same thing happens with any
| OS and Wi-Fi device when briefly scanning for surrounding access
| points. In the case of my setup (2017 MacBook Air running
| 10.15/Catalina) the penalty seems forgettable - avg. ping jumps
| from 2 ms to 25 ms during 1.5 seconds, on 802.11n/5GHz with about
| 20 other 2.4GHz/5GHz access points in my vicinity. My Asus
| ZenBook running Linux Mint and equipped with Intel Centrino Wi-Fi
| suffers a lot more from the same procedure.
| causi wrote:
| Why would someone program an OS to do this when it's already
| connected to an access point? This is like me eating a sandwich
| and stopping mid-chew every minute to check the fridge.
| amarshall wrote:
| Reason one is that one doesn't generally connect to an access
| point (BSSID), but rather to a an SSID. That SSID may have
| many access points, as the device may roam. Periodic scans
| check to see if another access point for the same SSID is now
| a better choice, and switch accordingly. On Linux,
| configuring the connection to a specific BSSID generally
| disables periodic scans.
|
| Reason two is to determine location from WiFi network data.
| Location may not be static even if connected to a single
| network, since that network may cover a large area and be
| roam-able, or be moving (hotspot, train, etc.).
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > Reason one is that one doesn't generally connect to an
| access point (BSSID), but rather to a an SSID. That SSID
| may have many access points, as the device may roam.
| Periodic scans check to see if another access point for the
| same SSID is now a better choice, and switch accordingly.
|
| Maybe I don't fully understand the Wi-Fi "space" but I
| gotta wonder why the standard hasn't embraced a CDMA-like
| system where your device can just roam around without
| really caring which AP is the strongest... the access
| points would all communicate with each other to figure out
| which one should be responsible for a device.
|
| It would also fix all the nonsense with picking channels
| for each access point. They'd all use the same spectrum.
|
| But I'm only an armchair observer so who knows...
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Because on devices with only WIFI the only way to give you
| 'GPS' like data is to scan for nearby wifi access points.
| There are several big databases in the sky that know about a
| great many Access Points and when your laptop says 'i see
| these 10 APs with this amount of signal' it can figure out
| where you are.
| outworlder wrote:
| It's not really forgettable if any app can request a scan at
| any time - collect wireless logs, then start the Maps app, you
| will see repeated scans. Locationd doing this ever so often
| might be acceptable, but not when any app can do this,
| repeatedly.
|
| Also, 25 milliseconds is about a round trip across half the
| continental US. Not really sure that's a good tradeoff for
| devices that are mostly stationary.
| herpderperator wrote:
| This is normal across all wifi clients; they can't scan for
| networks and transfer data simultaneously so there will always be
| increased latency during that event. You can test this yourself
| by doing a low-interval ping and clicking the wifi icon to show
| you nearby networks - you'll notice a brief latency spike.
|
| I agree that it's not a good default to have an app doing this,
| though.
| motrm wrote:
| This may not always be the case, fortunately! I recall the
| Broadcom Wi-Fi 7 chipset announcement[0] in April mentioned a
| dedicated scan core which may well offload the network searches
| to a separate part of the chip, freeing the AP connectivity
| core(s) from having to do other tasks for a second or two each
| minute.
|
| Here's hoping it works as I understand it and other chipsets
| start doing similar things!
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31060452
| dijit wrote:
| Surely you can't use the same antennae for two different
| operations at the same time...
|
| The noise would be unsalvageable and you would lose packets,
| surely.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I mean background scanning only has to be a read operation,
| shouldn't that make it simpler?
|
| Also things these days often have multiple antennas.
|
| Also for 2.4ghz I believe Bluetooth shares the same
| channels. I've noticed that my BT headphones reach longer
| in no-wifi/few wifi locations.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| On different bands you can with basic filters. On the same
| band it would admittedly be tough (unless the band is super
| wide like the 6E band). It is done by radio repeaters for
| example but they do need big bulky filters, that kind of
| thing would not work on a laptop. But it is possible to
| transmit and receive on the same antenna at the same time,
| it's not a technical limitation. You just need a good
| enough filter.
| rasz wrote:
| Supporting 802.11g means scans are send at 1Mbit. 802.11a
| bumps it to 6Mb/s, so not much better. This means that every
| time you want to send a beacon you have a pause equal to the
| duration it takes to send a packed at 1-6Mbit, not to mention
| scanning all the channels.
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| Solution for Windows (replace interface name as needed):
| netsh wlan set autoconfig enabled=no interface="Wireless
| Network Connection"
|
| Caveat: you need to turn this back on if you need to re-connect
| or scan networks.
| causi wrote:
| Is there a way to configure Windows to only scan for networks
| when it isn't connected to one?
| wnevets wrote:
| or change how often it scans
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Still have two .bat scripts (on/off) on my desktop from a
| time when I only had wifi. And it still baffles me that such
| measures can be necessary.
| ncann wrote:
| I used to have constant ping spike at regular interval and
| had to do that bat script thing, which fixed it but it was
| really annoying. Eventually I figured out it was because of
| a Qt bug in the Qt lib that an application running in the
| background is using, and there is a system property to
| disable that behavior.
|
| https://bugreports.qt.io/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/QTBUG
| -...
| not2b wrote:
| But if the laptop is currently connected to a WiFi network with
| a known location, what's the point of scanning for networks to
| locate it? You already know that you're within range of a known
| spot.
| bschne wrote:
| ,,Within range of one network" doesn't give you as much
| information as ,,all these networks are visible and here's
| how strong they look from where you are"
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| True, but is that precision worth the hit to latency...
| especially if you're trying to do a voice and/or video
| call? I doubt it's worth the tradeoff most of the time.
| lelandfe wrote:
| How often are folks in meetings, connected to WiFi, and
| opening up the WiFi connections list to hunt for other
| networks?
|
| I'm frankly surprised that the author of these tweets
| encountered this at all, much less was so annoyed by it
| as to troubleshoot.
| not2b wrote:
| Not just within range, connected to. Meaning you're close
| enough to have a strong signal. If it isn't a strong signal
| this can be detected and the system could scan in that
| case, looking for a better one.
| theptip wrote:
| It's good to know. I suppose the unintuitive part is that
| "location" means "Wi-Fi scan". Makes sense for a laptop when
| you think about it but I wouldn't have thought of this as the
| first thing to check.
| 13of40 wrote:
| It's kind of a weird situation we're in with this. Facebook
| and Google track your location by default and you can go back
| and look where you've been on a map. I used it to figure out
| the details of an automated traffic ticket I got on a trip to
| Europe a couple of years back, so it's not totally useless
| from a consumer perspective, but it's still creepy. So you
| opt out, but "location services" keeps tracking you and
| sending your location data (as represented by the SSIDs and
| signal strength around you) but not telling you you're being
| tracked. So you opt out of that, and all the sudden you're
| subject to a bunch of dark patterns insisting you need to
| enable it again, even though it's perfectly capable of just
| using the GPS and keeping everything on the client. I'm glad
| my life isn't interesting enough for it to matter, I guess.
| culturestate wrote:
| _> the unintuitive part is that "location" means "Wi-Fi
| scan"_
|
| I was under the impression that this has been SOP for mobile
| device location forever: get rough location via WiFi and/or
| tower multilateration while GPS is...I don't know the proper
| terminology here, _bootstrapping?_ That 's why your dot tends
| to start somewhere nearby-ish and then quicky jump to your
| exact location.
|
| It's possible that I'm way off base or my understanding is
| outdated, though.
| Gigachad wrote:
| > I don't know the proper terminology here, bootstrapping?
|
| There is the term "Time to first fix" Maybe "getting first
| fix" could be derived from that.
|
| Wikipedia lists a set of interesting situations with what
| the device is actually doing that causes the delay
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_to_first_fix
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I'm thinking that my devices could have an offline list of
| known WiFi mac-addresses from when it's checked GPS before
| and return those for very accurate results without scanning
| anything.
| urda wrote:
| I cannot replicate this, I believe the twitter use got hooked on
| a red herring here. To be fair anything anti-apple is a quick way
| to get clicks.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Anything apple (both ways) is a good way to get clicks on
| hackernews at least.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's a lot better than it used to be, when every Daring
| Fireball entry stayed on the front page for days.
| urda wrote:
| This is also true!
|
| I just can't replicate it, and another user ( leodriesch )
| pointed out they may be a few versions behind. That's not
| something I can replicate right now.
| leodriesch wrote:
| The screenshots are from a version before the Big Sur visual
| refresh, so at least 2 major versions behind the current
| release.
|
| Could just be a bug that has been fixed already.
| outworlder wrote:
| I saw infrequent scans from locationd, every few minutes.
| Until I opened the Maps app, that is. Then it started
| triggering frequent scans.
|
| Sure, Maps may want to know your location, but it should not
| have the ability to constantly poll wifi.
|
| Also, different chipsets may display different behavior.
| Older wifi chipsets may have more trouble with this.
| urda wrote:
| I did not realize this / check this. I had made the
| assumption of latest macOS and-what-have-you.
|
| I however, cannot setup that environment right now.
| ActionHank wrote:
| I've seen this myself, turning off location services solved the
| issue for me.
|
| It's definitely there and happening.
| chomp wrote:
| Seconded, this is definitely a thing.
| op00to wrote:
| Thirded, my game streaming got way better when I turned off
| location services.
| can16358p wrote:
| I'm on Wi-Fi on my MacBook (Pro 16" 2021). I opened Maps.app
| (which gets my location correctly), started pinging my router,
| it's been a few minutes...
|
| No spike. It must be occuring at _some_ corner case, not for
| everyone.
| tonymet wrote:
| i became obsessed with mtr. your ping latency and variance is a
| better indicator of vc quality
| tedunangst wrote:
| I like that the first reply is to switch from zoom to google
| meet. Very helpful.
| jedisct1 wrote:
| But no one said "you should rewrite it in Rust" yet.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I reckon that'd be because it isn't relevant to the topic at
| all. I'd say most things that advertise written in Rust is
| because it's a valid upside, not all but definitely most.
| nvr219 wrote:
| I set up automation to prompt me to turn off WiFi when I leave
| the house.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-12 23:00 UTC)