sgjohnson

> It seemed so much more difficult and unpleasant to deal with.

In my experience it’s much easier and much more pleasant do deal with. Every VLAN is a /64 exactly. Subnetting? Just increment on a nibble boundary. Every character can be split 16 ways. It’s trivial.

You don’t even need to use a subnet calculator for v6, because you can literally do that in your head.

Network of 2a06:a003:1234:5678::555a:bcd7/64? Easy - the first 4 octets.

Network of 10.254.158.58/27? Your cheapest shotgun and one shell please.

But that is a bug in history. IPv6 was standardized BEFORE NAT.

“most what they know from IPv6” is just NAT.

> A less ambitious IPv4 is exactly what we need in order to make any progress

but we’re already making very good progress with IPv6? Global traffic to Google is >50% IPv6 already.

> Only the edge equipment would need to be IPv4+ aware. And even that awareness could be quite gradual, since you would have NAT to fall back on when receiving an IPv4 classic packet at the network. It can even be customer deployed. Add an IPv4+ box on the network, assign it the DMZ address, and have it hand out public IPV4+ addresses and NAT them to the local IPv4 private subnet.

Congratulations, you’ve re-invented CGNAT, with none of the benefits, and the additional hassle of it being an entirely new protocol!

No. No “extra bits” on an IPv4 address would have ever worked. NAT itself is a bug. Suggesting that as an intentional design is disingenuous.

464XLAT is for dealing with IPv4 literal addresses in a v6 only network. Non-literals can be addressed with DNS64 & NAT64

graalvm native binaries?

Most likely still worth it when comparing by unit of energy produced.

> This argument that nuclear power generation is clean if you ignore the times when it isn't seems a bit no-true-Scotsman to me.

The same can be said about wind and solar. Nothing about producing the rare earths required is clean.

Even if we include Chernobyl, nuclear is still by far the safest source of energy when looking at deaths per TWh generated.

> I can, off the top of my head, name two sites that are dangerous decades after they were polluted

Two? I can only count one. Fukushima is almost perfectly safe today, although exclusion zones still exist.

Nitpick: pretty sure both of those are in the billions.

Mails could even be in the trillions.

Breakout cables typically split to 4.

e.g. QSFP28 (100GbE) splits into 4x SFP28s (25GbE each), because QSFP28 is just 4 lanes of SFP28.

Same goes for QSFP112 (400GbE). Splits into SFP112s.

It’s OSFP that can be split in half, i.e. into QSFPs.

This was solved in 2007 with Privacy Extensions.

It has been a non-existent problem for roughly 20 years now. Why do people still keep pulling out "uniquely identified down to the device" as an argument?

Windows, macOS and most Linux distros by default rotate SLAAC addresses every 24 hours.

Yes. I’ll never forgive IETF for standardizing CGNAT back in 2013. They should have just said “no, deploy IPv6 with a transition technology”.

If that had happened, IPv4 would likely already could be regarded as a relic of the past.

> Innocence until proven guilty should mean the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove you actually looked at it right?

It wouldn't be criminal, just civil, and civil trials have much lower standard for the burden of proof. It's just preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), instead of beyond all reasonable doubt.

> but I still find it hilarious that a supposedly serious server OS would default to showing you the weather and ads in the start menu.

Server and LTSC SKUs don’t do that :)

It won't "cannibalize" the PC market share. But I would argue that the overall market share is irrelevant. Most people don't even use Adblock/UBlock for Web browsing, so they don't even know what's best for them, and therefore are likely to just go for the cheapest option that gets the job done. Apple won't win them over, because that's not how Apple operates.

Another huge segment is people who just use whatever their work provides.

Laptop users who 1. care enough, 2. have the means, and 3. have the inclination to even get a personal laptop are a solid minority. Which coincidentally is how Microsoft gets away with the disaster that Windows 11 is. They have about _no_ user-customers left.

I know plenty of PC-hardliners that have switched from Windows to a Mac in recent years. And exactly nobody who has switched in the opposite direction.

I'm also pretty sure that most people who have personal laptops keep them around for 5+ years before upgrading. I myself had a 2015 15" MacBook Pro that lasted me until 2022 when Ventura support was cut off. I only upgraded it in 2023 when Apple launched Advanced Data Protection, which I was very keen to use, and had to make a choice between logging out of iCloud or buying a new MacBook. So seeing that the 2015 model had indeed reached it's useful life for me, I got myself a M2 Max 16", which I also fully expect will last me 7+ years.

So as long as IT procurement in most companies will keep buying whatever cheap PC laptops they can by weight, PC market share is safe, and Microsoft is doing the best they can to keep it that way. Apple can only compete for users who have the will and the choice. And the $699 MacBook will quite likely capture a few of them.

Additionally - I have a PC too. All it does is it runs videogames. In fact I use my personal PC a lot more often than I use my personal MacBook.

Problem with 10 LTSC is the fact that it's based on 21H2, and there definitely isn't going to be a feature update for it, now that 11 LTSC is out. Some games already require 22H2.

When the $699 MacBook launches, oh boy it's going to sell well.

That also had a HUMINT element.

The average commenter here is a software guy. I imagine for the average software guy a Master Caution would be like a minor compile-time warning, i.e. feel free to just disregard it. :)

> It is a system built out of very regulated parts, very professional people, and tight controls.

also worth mentioning that most of the civil aviation regulations and SOPs regarding commercial flights are written in blood.

It wouldn’t change anything. The line between a “mayday - fuel emergency” and any other flight waiting for a landing slot is crystal clear. Of course, in low-but-not-emergency fuel scenarios the pilots can request priority, but the ATC don’t have to oblige them.

If you cut into the final reserve, it’s a full-blown emergency requiring a mayday call.

This should not happen. So what’s there to investigate? How it was allowed to happen, and how to prevent it from happening again.

EDIT: it’s a mayday even earlier than that. It’s a mayday once the pilots know that they WILL land with less than the final reserve.

Have you seen what Count Bernadotte proposed in 1948?

That rule was brought about by the UN Security Council Resolution 242.

And funnily enough, nobody objected when Egypt annexed Gaza, and Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1948.

As far as the international law is concerned, Israel was completely in the clear to annex the entire place until 22nd of November, 1967. After that it gets a bit murky.

That still doesn't change the fact that the entire idea of an independent Palestinian state happened because Israel just didn't annex it all in 1967.

But going back to the UNSC Resolution 242.

> Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

There are still no recognized boundaries of Palestine, and there sure as hell weren't in 1967. The original UN Partition Plan for Palestine was adopted, but the problem with its adoption is the fact that it was a General Assembly resolution, and the problem with General Assembly resolutions is that they are notoriously non-binding, and thus not worth the paper they are printed on.

Which brings me back to my initial point that the international law just doesn't matter, because technically speaking, the original Partition Plan was settled international law. Worked out great in practice.

I actually fail to see how the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank violates international law (not that international law means anything), aside from the obvious fact that they weren’t outright annexed after 1967, when Israel was on rock-solid legal ground to just annex the entire place (nothing in the international law prohibits a country from annexing territory won in a _defensive_ war).

Eh. Just about everyone is doing the absolute best they can to give an impression that they are doing something about it, without actually doing anything meaningful at all.

Even the recent recognition of the Palestinian state from Canada, UK and France. They know full and well that it’s basically a meaningless gesture.

Haha. No. Hamas goal with October 7 was exactly this. To provoke an Israeli overreaction in order to derail the diplomatic recognition talks between Israel and the Saudis.

Hamas just underestimated how much it would actually cost. Or maybe they didn’t, who knows.

> The damage to the Israeli state is incalculable.

Is it? Because not even the Arab countries that have recently recognized Israel don’t seem to particularly care about what Israel does in Gaza. Aside from a press release or a vote at the UN. All empty words.

Not a single Arab country that recognizes Israel has suspended (or even lowered) diplomatic relations with Israel.

I’m pretty sure that once the war in Gaza ends, everyone will be all too happy to forget that it even happened. Even if they won’t say it out loud.

> They need both.

No. If they could fill the entire plane with business/first class seats and sell out >70% (maybe even less) of it, you bet they would.

The only reason why economy class exists is because they can’t. But the demand for more premium travel is steadily increasing, which will lead to shrinking economy cabins.

So yes, they do need to fill the space. But I wouldn’t say that they need the economy passengers.

> So, airlines structure and furnish accordingly.

By cutting the number of economy seats and increasing the number of business and first class ones?

Airlines don’t care about the economy traveller. They are there just to fill the space for a marginal profit.

While it’s impressive, we generally hate Face/ID verification on social media around here…