That in no way relates to what I said.

"Windows sucks"
"Yeah but linux will work!"

That's a pretty poor argument, considering you can't buy the camera modules for that.

Yeah, but -which- ipv6 is implemented everywhere?

That's the problem. You deploy IPv4 and it works. You deploy IPv6 and... half the internet is black, and almost nothing works. And it's comparably difficult to use - and that makes it meaningfully worse, in both regards.

To get any of the good features of IPv6, the things that make it worth the time, you've got bolt on a half dozen different higher level (OSI) services.

That's probably the first legitimate reason I've seen for IPv6.

Probably the fact that it was designed to be a duct tape solution which was incomprehensible by anyone with an IQ under 120, additionally requiring a myriad of services to make it worth the time or effort to fully implement, further exacerbating its adoption and interoperability.

Guess it failed at that, then, too - because IPv8 has been proposed, and it's actually something approachable compared to the management and comprehensional shitstack that IPv6 is.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-thain-ipv8-00.html

They went back and addressed the issue from first principles instead of relying on a presumption which has not proven to be fully true, in turn resulting in a mismatch of capabilities and implementations across platforms which don't play nicely with each other (and subsequently, unfortunately, make it difficult to move forward with either v6 or transition to anything else).

Not really. Google proposed these limitations, letting them claim proudly "hey, we proposed this!"

They didn't require these limitations, so my suspicion is Pentagon will say no, the deal will be classified so nobody will know, and Google will get the credit they want for "trying."

Ugh, yeah. My grandparents lived in Germany in the early 40s and told me stories about having to take the train to some sort of camp. Really terrible experience. Would not recommend.

It was fake open source to begin with. Try to actually use it for something and you run into its "licencing" restrictions. So I think this may well be an attempt to get some attention. It isn't actually that big of a change.

Most American cars are "expensive" due to regulation requirements, in no small part - and auto manufacturers knowing they can pony onto those required things with added cost.

Like backup cameras, now legally required with all the CANBUS integrations for eg. obstacles. The camera adds thousands to the car price, and if it's damaged, that's thousands in repair. The same goes for expensive DOT-compliant headlamps ($3k-4k for the Ford and Land Rover ones that I've seen) which have to be reprogrammed (another $400 or so service charge). You can get a (technically superior in almost every way) EU Land Rover headlamp setup for half the price - imported, no less.

Those are just two examples, and there are likely many more, but the fact that you can't buy a "basic" car without all the bells and whistles (4 wheels, a motor, modern brakes, a transmission, and minimal wiring) is definitely a part of the problem. Say what you will about EVs, Tesla has done an amazing job integrating things without blowing their pricing up, providing good value for the first owner. (Not so great on resale, but that's another matter.)

Let's hope Oracle never buys them out. They'll assert ownership over dBase, defeature it, try to sue anyone who targets it and replace it in the storyline.

...the country where you can buy firearms at Walmart wants to restrict 3D printing because they worry about gun parts?

What drugs are these people on?

New Samsung cell phones have many connections to Google.

There need to be laws limiting Google's invasions to user devices.

Fewer than 1 of a hundred ads are interesting to me. Maybe 1 in a thousand.

You'd be well suited to give your agents prompts to be contrary, critical, and sarcastic. It adds some perspective - while also helping indicate the model's alignment on a specific topic.

It would be good for everyone if, after 2-4 years in the IT field as a developer, everyone were forced to take a 6-9-month paid sabbatical to work on their choice of one of: a working cattle or dairy ranch, a non-mechanized farm (orchards, avocados, greenhouse operation, etc.), or some other "foundational" industry where their work output has more direct baring on reality - forestry and land management, water treatment, infrastructure maintenance.

It would help put life in perspective, and likely result in more solutions which benefit everyone instead of just produce profit for the business elite. Not only would they get ideas on how to build things to benefit those industries, but they'd have a more well rounded experience: basically, the modern day equivalent of what the "liberal arts degree" and university was originally intended to do.

Almost everyone today, particularly in tech, is completely divorced from the reality we live in due to urban living. We were raised in cities and experienced the digital world from our relative infancy, even the "old" people who are still working in these fields (eg. GenX). In my experience, there's a very large capability and focus difference between those who grew up in these environments and those who were taught longer term thinking (seasons, not study units) by living and interacting with the organic world. Personally, it's more often that not that I'll meet an exceptional engineer and then find out later he grew up on a farm in Nebraska or harvesting maple syrup in Vermont or something.