Zrdr

IPv4 address with more address bits would have worse, because it would have the same incompatibility problem as IPv6, without its benefits.

Actually, IPv6 is good design. Adoption is slow because most people and companies always prefer a cheap short term inferior solution compared to the good long term one.

Now, IPv6 is 25% of traffic. It will continue to grow, and at a point the network effect will be on IPv6 side. Not long after that, IPv4 will only be a niche for a few legacy systems.

If we want to use only one official working language, it should be Esperanto. This would be neutral for any country (including Ireland and Malta). This would not be a threat to other languages and cultures.

Esperanto is easier to learn than any naturally evolved language. Its benefits are clear, it only needs a political support to thrive.

Congrats !

This reminds me of this amazing computer done in the cellular automaton Wireworld. https://www.quinapalus.com/wi-index.html

Great discussion. However I'm don't find Rodney Brooks arguments very compelling.

See, near the end, the reply by Alison Gopnik.

Effectively, HN has a strong bias over interesting things.

US constitution is based on enlightenment philosophy. Even if I tend to like this more than alternatives, I would not call it natural.

As homo sapiens sapiens is a social animal, it's difficult to make the distinction between what it "natural aspirations" and "social consensus".

The author explicitly said it is not motivated by money for this project.

When you have money, you may like the power it gives you to make incentives so people do what you like. However, in some rare cases, someone doesn't need your money and prefers doing thing how himself likes. If you don't like that, that's your problem and not the one of the people refusing your money.

I would say "no cost".

On the hosting service I use, you can rent an IPv6 only host and you pay less. Why would you pay for an IPv4 address if you don't need it ?

+1 Dancing Link. Donald Knuth rules !

I agree. If an algo can demonstrate the huge gain between a clever algorithme and a naive one, it's this one.

The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host behavior.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_...

If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite "wrong".