I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but virtually every post here about a new version of Firefox coming out had dozens of comments asking why they were still wasting time on Pocket and nobody used it or knew what it was for... which wasn't entirely unfair.

I'm still not entirely sure what it was for, some sort of bookmarking thing? It felt like the pet project of someone major at Mozilla who couldn't articulate what exactly it did but felt that only if people understood it everyone would want it, and who kept pushing development despite the lack of use.

You weren't before, why would you be now?

They should just be permanently struck off, and get other careers.

There's multiple problems with what the lawyers in these cases are doing that means their attitude towards advocating for their client reflects long term issues with their professionalism. They're willing to take short cuts, they aren't checking verifiable facts, they're putting themselves in a position where they can easily mislead the court despite having the ability to avoid it. In the UK (as I suspect is the case elsewhere, though everyone assumes otherwise) a lawyer, yes, has to stand up for their client, but they can't misrepresent what they know. At best they can get away with sophistry or avoid emphasis on things they don't think helps their case, but issues as simple as a client confessing to them cannot be covered up (if you go to a UK lawyer and say "They caught me stealing a priceless Rembrandt, can you get me found not-guilty?" the answer is "Not anymore I can't, find another lawyer and don't mention the fact you were actually stealing")

And this is important. Miscarriages of justice can result in untold damage for the victims of it, and a lawyer who takes shortcuts and doesn't verify the facts in front of them is going, inevitably, to cause one.

So if a lawyer is caught red handed doing something that reflects that attitude, they need to be struck off and it needs to be permanent. Not "Re-do their law degree", but "Learn to code" (well, maybe not THAT....)

What's doubly weird is that it sounds like the message about not using LLMs to build legal cases isn't getting out there. We're currently in a situation where virtually everyone is having LLM-generated-output shoved down our throats - just doing a Google query will result in an answer from Google's 50% of the time - and where the LLM generated output is usually unwanted, irrelevant, and maybe 50% of the time incorrect even on its own terms; we've had numerous HIGH PROFILE cases of lawyers being admonished by judges for using LLMs that cited non-existent cases, and yet people are still using them for situations where accuracy is important. And I'm probably going to get reply-bombed from the gaggle of LLM-boosters to this very comment who reply to every slight criticism of it either denying the problem exists, or pretending it'll be fixed RSN now because all they need is more contradictory input and we must destroy the entire content generation industry to get it. Because not even a tech forum like Slashdot has a majority population who understands that spicy autocorrect isn't how you get facts.

That regulation the AI companies insist shouldn't be necessary? It needs to be brought now, world wide.

And yet they're failing.

Virtually everything that's described as "malware" by Android users - unwanted apps that violate privacy - was installed by the manufacturer. Play Store and side loaded apps are sandboxed unless you root the device. Nobody is mandating rooting.

If you think sideloading apps enables malware, you must have a pretty low opinion of Apple's quality standards for its own OS.

I suspect the EO you're referring to was the one about social media where laws preventing social media companies from promoting posts that promote violence, for example, will result in people from those countries being punished if they visit the US. (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyro.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F25%2F05%2F28%2F201215%2Fus-will-ban-foreign-officials-to-punish-countries-for-social-media-rules)

It's not so generic as to punish any action against a US company that holds them accountable, but it is still absurd.

As an aside, your comment is not flamebait or troll and shouldn't have been modded as such.

> apple is not wrong here to say that people are incredibly stupid and liable to get tricked into side loading malware.

Yes, yes they are. They're lying. If that were the case, Android users would constantly be sideloading malware.

You know what kind of app gets described as malware by most Android users? The stuff that's pre-installed by a manufacturer. Android users virtually never install malware. It's just not a problem. (It's incredibly difficult to create effective malware for Android anyway unless you're the manufacturer as apps are generally sandboxed. You need root access to actually do damage.)

Apple just wants to get their 30%. That's the reason for banning side loading and always has been.

> Because once their iPhones are infested with sideloaded malware, customers call Apple tech support and bring it to the "Genius Bar" at the Apple Store, and blame Apple for the problems.

This is literally something you've made up as some ridiculous prediction for a future that hasn't happened and it's clearly absurd.

Let's deal with the zoomed in view first:

- Do people blame Apple when their Macs have malware?
- Do ordinary people even blame Microsoft when Windows PCs have malware? Techies get mad at Microsoft for not making it more secure, sure, but I've never heard of ordinary Windows users avoiding Windows because of malware. Most ultimately blame themselves for being fooled in the first place, and if they don't blame themselves they blame whoever tricked them, as they should.

Now zoom out, because this is getting even more absurd:

- In what world does "Sideloading=Malware"? How much malware under Android is sideloaded? Any at all?
- Are you speculating that Apple allowing sideloading is going to mean Apple just lets applications install themselves without warnings or user input? Have you seen some mandate that implies Apple will legally be forced to do that? Or are you convinced that this is the only way Apple will set up sideloading - some bizarre system that has no precedent outside of long obsolete 1980s operating systems like the original MacOS where downloading an application (that is, merely having the unarchived version on your hard drive) also installs it?
- Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "sandboxing"? Do you think it's somehow harder to sandbox apps than it is legacy applications under more conventional older operating systems? Are you aware that sandboxing is actually where much of OS development is heading anyway to deal exactly with this kind of issue? Are you aware Android has sandboxed apps from the start and is continually improving its sandboxing model - and virtually every problem with it was something everyone knows about that Google dragged its feel about, rather than something unfixable that Apple cannot make mandatory from day #1?

Now zoom out even further, because this weird bizarre scenario gets even more ridiculous the more you take a wide view of things:

- Why would THIS be the vector to install malware on iPhones? People physically installing it? Because when people get malware on their PCs nine times out of ten, despite my comment about about only Techies blaming Microsoft, it's because of security holes in the underlying OS. People don't, as a rule, just click on random .MSIs, and then sit through an installation process. Sure, you can make sure your infected acrobat reader copy is at ad0be.xyz reaches the top of the search engines due to some ingenious SEO, but the truth is the easier and more prominent your malware is, the more likely you are to be caught.
- Or to put it another way: Why do you think iOS gets "security updates"? You think it's because iOS has no security holes?

The whole "I need Daddy Apple to spank me when I install something they don't like" BS is pathetic Daddy-statism. It's your phone, you, not Apple, get the final say in what runs on it. If you want Apple to help, continue just installing stuff only from the App Store. It's fine to ask Apple for help, it's quite another to demand everyone be ruled by Apple's whims. Especially as, so far, they've proven to be abusive with the power they have.

While I'm at it, I'm wondering if half your issues are because you might be, if I'm reading correctly between the lines, manually configuring the prefix rather than having your router pull it via DHCP PD (or similar.) If it's that, then that'll prevent the router from renewing the prefix, which is why your packets stop being routed.

You have to get a router that works and is set up correctly for this. I would strongly suggest if you're technically inclined looking into OpenWRT - not because I generally recommend it, I don't, but because you may be fighting a broken implementation on your ISP's end and obviously OpenWRT is much easier to use to investigate problems like that than your generic D-Link or TP-Link router.

If you're not technically inclined then, sure, get something generic. D-Link or Netgear I know do understand IPv6. TP-Link I can't comment on, only router I've tried from them required configuration of IPv6 "in the cloud" which is... insane. I don't think that's typical though. I will say that the Wi-Fi AP I bought from them (not a router) has buggy firmware. But the hardware was top notch. So jury's out, for me, recommending them. But D-Link (despite recent enshittification) or Netgear should at least do things the right way if you're not able to use OpenWRT for this.

Yeah, the UBI promoters I've seen have largely been on the techbro right, "Don't worry about this technology, yes it'll make your job obsolete but we can do UBI instead!". I'm not saying it's a right wing idea, it's not an any-wing idea, but the idea it's "the left" pushing it is bizarrely out of touch. The left is usually the group pointing out the obvious problems, like the fact that some people who cannot work need more money than many who can work - people with disabilities for instance. Plus there's the whole problem of trusting a government that swings ideologically one way or the other to pay a consistent UBI that's enough to live on. And then there's the geographic limitat... well, you get the idea.

But... of course, that's not why he said it. The truth is the admin always describes things as "far left" or "left wing" or attributes it to left wingers when it doesn't want to do it.

And he's probably right that UBI isn't the direction even those pushing it as a solution to "AI" should be going in, especially as I'm sure he's more aware than most that LLMs are a clusterfuck and not the employee-replacements they're pushed as being.

> The /56 is only a problem because you need to know about it, that's all. To be fair the allocation of a /24 was only a convention with IPv4, but it was something that fairly obviously should have been discoverable in v6.

Why would you, an end user, need to know about it short of a bug in your router or ISP?

The chat your router should be having, over DHCP-PD, with your ISP is along the lines of:

Router: Give me a prefix, anything!

ISP: Sure, here's a /56

Router: Wow, that's 256 /64s just for me. OK, I'm just a home router and wasn't configured for anything special so I'll set those other bits to {some randomly picked number} and use that as the prefix I'll advertise to those connecting through me.

Now, I am aware some ISPs don't do it properly and expect the DHCP-PD client to specifically ask for a prefix of a set size, but even then router makers should be going through every sane PD prefix size automatically until they either get something or it becomes clear that the ISP isn't giving prefixes.

The bottom line is that the routers you've used (or possibly the ISP) are broken, not IPv6. This is a little like complaining IPv4 is terrible because a bug in your router means it doesn't understand whatever protocol the ISP is using to give you an IPv4 address. There's got to be a protocol to give the IPv4 address or IPv6 prefix, and it's got to be implemented correctly by both sides. The only reason this rarely happens with IPv4 is because the protocols are now so old and IPv4 so default that a router that's broken is going to be noticed by virtually everyone who uses it, while with IPv6 it's not noticed until someone techie uses it.

> My point about the router is that the ones that ISPs supply generally have crap implementations of IPv6, as so most SOHO ones. That is changing thanks to people like TP Link shipping a half decent OS on their base models, but these crap network devices are one of the reasons why IPv6 is largely ignored by many people and organizations.

OK, but that's an ISP issue, not an IPv6 issue. Some ISPs, of course, don't even supply IPv6. But regardless, it's imperative that we put the blame on the right group. Saying a great, nearly perfect, technology is "crap" because your ISP or the equipment they bought is crap is basically preventing us from moving forward.

And we must move forward. Because you know what is crap? IPv4. We ran out of addresses in the late 1990s (almost as soon as the Internet became popular) hence virtually everyone having to give their computers private IPs behind a NATted shared address, and NAT has ushered in this dystopian crap where everyone relies on third parties for every Internet service, giving up control of our communications and the content we want to post.

Yeah, to me it looks like excuses, similar to the "Oh no, I couldn't possibly use Mastodon, I heard you have to choose a server" bullshit (This from the same people who managed to pick a phone company and ISP that wasn't the phone company, and even an email provider that wasn't the ISP, but somehow the moment it becomes a useful alternative to some social networking site that's been taken over by Nazis it's "too hard" because of the most absurd reasons.) So the IP addresses are longer? So you have to maintain a hosts file or run a simple DNS server somewhere (assuming zeroconf/mDNS doesn't handle your needs)?

This stuff, which anyone doing anything complicated is likely to already be doing, is harder than NAT with port forwarding hacks how?

> my ISP supports IPv6, but only delegates a /56. There is no automatic configuration that can pick that up, you just have to know and set your router up correctly

Your router sucks. Since when has a /56 been a problem? My ISP only delegates a /60 which is even smaller. I've never come across a router that had a problem with that. A /56 would be awesome if unnecessary for most users (I doubt most users need more than a /64, but most ISPs give something bigger than that unless they're using mobile technologies. /61 is the smallest one I've seen that wasn't from a mobile provider.)

> The Sagemcom router they supplied has that set up for you, but seems to have a bug where after some indeterminate time the IPv6 addresses it dishes out stop working.

So... your router sucks? You can't blame a problem you're having on IPv6 when your router has a bug in it!

> You also need DNS to find stuff because the local address space is massive and you aren't supposed to control it

You need DNS or hosts files anyway if you have multiple machines. But you also have .local and other similar systems just as you did with IPv4. They run over IPv6 too.

You can, with most half decent routers, configure DHCPv6 to give out static node suffixes if you're absolutely desperate to give some machines memorable IPs. True, it doesn't work for everything, some insist on going the automatic suffix anyway. But... what's wrong with DNS or hosts files? When did using a name to connect to an internal machine become a problem? When did people actually want to use '10.1.78.123' to connect to their home server's ssh connection?

No it doesn't. People need to post videos to places that aren't YouTube. There are both commercial and federated alternatives to YouTube, it's just people like you insist on hiding their existence from people.

The way to beat Google isn't to regulate, allowing them to play cat and mouse with regulators with the rules changing every time there's a new government, it's to take away their power.

If you're a corporate bootlicker but still, for whatever reason, dislike Google, click here
If you're OK with volunteer run organizations or would even like to self host but in a way where your connection isn't overloaded, click here. (Self hosted videos are mirrored to the instances where people watch them so your bandwidth bill stays small)

Nothing from what I can see prevents Gerling from posting on both YouTube and Peertube and directing his users at the beginning of each new video to his Peertube account, pointing out the PeerTube account includes videos YouTube has nuked.

Counterpoint: IPv6 is awesome, and it's unbelievably easy to work with.

Where the fuck do you get it from that it's hard? Every single node configures itself seamlessly, and can connect to anything else on the Internet without needing proxies or clouds. The only limitations are when your ISP intentionally cripples something, and that's on the ISP, not IPv6.

> with all elections suspended indefinitely, all opposing political parties banned, and all news TV outlets either shuttered or taken over by the state.

Yeah, you do know there's a war on, right? How exactly is Ukraine supposed to have democratic elections when the Russians would see polling stations as easy targets?

If Ukraine wasn't a democracy before the war started, you might have a point. But it was, and it was far, far, more democratic - as evidenced by Zelenskyy's win - than your mother Russia ever was.