> The fundamental reason for having IPv6 got broken over a decade ago, and people stopped bothering because it had no benefits over what exists now.

So you think that only big companies with lot of money can have servers and that users are just users, will never need any server, can be all behind NAt
you think that a centralized network is ok... exactly now, where Mobile and IoT devices are everywhere and that peer2peer connections could be even more useful for future developments, but everything is behind NATs. Firewalls also exist in ipv6, that makes no difference to ipv4... and nat is not a firewall, by the way!

> It still has use - it does have a larger address space, but that's the only benefit it added.

I directly pointed that IPv6 have other benefits other than more IPs, but yep, you ignore it... quick list:
- simplify the IP headers, faster and easier processing the packages
- IPSec is now default and everything can use it, think https but for all other protocols
- roaming networks
- security/privacy, you can enable privacy extensions and each connection will use a different IP, making tracking and profile much harder
- easier routing and easier for routers and backbones to manage all the traffic
- automatic configuration, while dhcpv6 can still have it uses, you can deploy a network without it, dhcpv6 is also much simpler, no ARP and other legacy junk, it now just give you the DNS, NTP and other info, the IP is mostly autoconfigured
- ipv4 is already limiting IoT, requiring everything to talk to a central server, ipv6 can allow a true independent setup. Both autoconfigure, more IPvs, IPsec can build sub networks for this services. Also, no more having all your devices in the same ip range, you can have multiple, automatic, subnets, improving security
- you have localhost, localnet (never exist routers, perfect for internal networks) and internet... so you get a extra network that is very usefull (and replace most of what people say they want a NAT setup)

> Also, IPv6 purists are just nasty to work behind. IPv6 would replace everything you need - no need for DHCP, NAT, etc anymore i IPv6 does it all.
You even say that dhcpv6 and natv6 exist! nobody stop you to use them!!
dhcpv6 is actually used in many ipv6 setups. nat, while there are used for it, most people that want it, confuse nat with a firewall and, again, nat is not a firewall. Most people that say they want natv6 don't actually need any nat

> Not an entire family behind a single IPv4 address, when you can have every kid's phone having a unique IP so you can sue just the kid.
you don't know the ipv6 features, so you don't know the privacy extensions. It actually makes impossible to know what device did the connection, specially because there is no record in automatic configuration, no arp, etc. it makes much harder to prove the real source of the request

your car example make a good example of what ipv6 allow...
your car can connect to a central server and report any problem, but you can also query your car to check its status and request other car service company to connect to your car, check the status and have quick maintenance check without having to take your car to the anyplace.

Not enough to affect overall costs signficantly.

I remember seeing a study that came out around the pandemic that found that at that time, replacing all fossil fuels with synthetic e-fuels would require world grid electricity production to be tripled to quadroupled, in which scenario at least 1/3rd of this theoretical world's grid power, more than the entire output of the real world's electrical grid at the time, would end up being turned into waste heat through combustion engines (vs EV powertrains which are well over 90% efficient). How much have things improved since then?

We've had a few decades of "experience" and the build times have only gotten longer, if a lack of experience were the problem you'd expect build times to get shorter over time, especially after clusters of successful builds, but what we see is closer to the opposite. I'll get to the reason for that later...

Being proven wrong would be mildly annoying to me but what I'm really afraid of is being proven right, that would be catastrophic for the only life-bearing planet in the known universe.

Actually that's quite plausible. It's the only competitively priced option for new energy generation builds.

And that artificial construct is tied exclusively to nuclear power. It's social constructs doing it rather than the laws of physics, but the end result won't be much easier to escape in our lifetimes. Attempt nuclear power build, receive development hell because most countries have a societal phobia of nuclear energy.

Most countries don't have the relatively low nuclear power resistance of Canada or France unfortunately. Germany has fucked up mightily by closing nuclear plants unnecessarily and becoming highly reliant on Russian fossil fuels at the same time, but even with that they haven't been doing that badly on emissions, with fairly steady decreases in emissions per capita and global CO2 emissions percentage. Gross emissions only kicked up as Russia invaded Ukraine:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldometers.info%2F...

The problem isn't the technology, it's the public perception and the increasing regulatory scrutiny that comes with it. It gets worse after every blockbuster nuclear scare movie, actual nuclear disaster no matter how improbable like Chernobyl or Fukushima, or overblown nuclear hiccup like TMI. The only regulatory barriers getting worse for renewables are from fascist backlash which is generally not a majority opinion.

Renewables use storage now, so a solar plant still puts out energy in the dead of night. You should look into it.

Synthetic fuels won't work as a mainstream solution, they're incredibly energy-intensive to produce and then they go into engines that turn most of the energy the fuel holds straight into waste heat anyway. So having an advantage for synthetic fuel production isn't much of a positive.

That's just an average of construction time over roughly the entire history of nuclear power, which doesn't account for the fact that building nuclear power in modern times is much slower:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F20...

Saying that the average build time is under 8 years now is like counting all the cars made since the Model T and arguing that an average new car has a significant chance of having a carburetor or whitewall tires.

I want to avoid tarpitting any money that could go to decarbonizing the grid in nuclear development hell. That money could go into renewable power that could be putting electricity on the grid before the nuclear project has even defeated all the NIMBYs and anti-nuclear groups for a site to finalize a plant design on. Nuclear has a much longer and more failure-ridden history of trying the same things over and over than renewable does. Renewables look like a runaway success in comparison:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fourworldindata.org%2Fele...

If nuclear power could help then why couldn't renewable? They both produce electricity which faces similar challenges for fueling vehicles and producing fertilizer. Nuclear is more expensive than renewable and far, far slower to build. If waiting for a solution is dangerous, then nuclear power is the most dangerous of potential solutions. Reactor build time is measured in decades. We should start building reactors now for areas that don't have the geography for renewables, but they'll only be possible to complete in time to put the finishing touches on a mostly-renewable solution.

The reason fossil fuel use isn't in rapid decline in favor of renewables is mostly that existing fossil power is cheaper than new renewables. It's the same problem for an ICE-powered vehicle you already own vs. a new EV, or an existing LNG plant vs. a new wind farm.

A big part of the problem is economic, this won't be cheap to fix and we have an economy where an ever-increasing share of humanity's productive output goes toward pointlessly filling up the Scrooge McDuck vaults of the ownership class, and when they do spend a decent chunk of their wealth it's on stupid shit that often makes the problem worse. Instead of having a middle class that can afford new EVs and renewable energy we have billionaires with full-scale rocketry hobbies and ruined social media sites accelerating the spread of pro-fossil-fuel fascism.

You build a Mr. Fusion nuclear reactor and use it to power your DeLorean time machine with which you go back in time several decades and get a whole planet's worth of nuclear reactors started in time to contribute to solving today's global warming problems.

Orrr you could build lots of renewable power today which is cheaper and way faster and doesn't require a time machine, but may cause damage to conservative feefees.

That's what I use AI for as well: a first step. The biggest difference AI and regular sources, is that the latter give you a lot of clues regarding the accuracy of the information. The source, the website, the way the information is written, context like article titles, all of these give some hint about how well the author understands the material, and if their answer is even relevant to your question. The AI however will always appear authoritative, even if they are obviously wrong, and with important context stripped out. Sometimes you get an answer that looks plausible, but is invalid, or about a different version of the gadget you are asking about.

AI has been great for generating artwork, logos, sounds and so on, for small personal projects. And I've use AI deepfake voice generation to provide voice-over for game mods (some of the voice actors have given modders explicit permission to use their voice like that). It lets me do stuff that was completely out of my reach just a few years ago, or things for which I have zero talent.

"Nuclear Power will solve the climate crisis, and it doesn't need a breakthrough or a TED talk, all it needs is a building permit" - Sabine Hossenfelder.

sorry, but it is not listed as a USA state, nor you can vote for USA elections... so not a USA state

Google/chrome can fix this if they want

Chrome and chrome based browsers are all over the place. They changed the plain http to https in a few years. just by pushing https as the default.

They can do the same for IPv6. If a site can't be reach via IPv6, add a snail to the URL. Site owners would quickly start deploying the IPv6, if not already (a 5min setup with cloudflare can enable all sites with both ipv4 and ipv6, while of course, be dependent of a external entity)
For ISPs, people will start to complain, specially if they see friends without the snail icon. Perception of a problem is more important than the problem in many cases. ISPs without IPv6 would start to be looked as bad because they are "slow" and would finally move forward

Chrome can even use a tooltip where it can report if the snail is due to the local ISP (test the client), the remote server (does it have a AAAA record?) or in between (if both sides have ipv6 but it fails, report as a transit problem)
pressuring both the ISP and servers, the few backbones without IPv6 would quickly fix that too, but the main problem is still ISP

Confirming that vodafone have a working ipv6 setup for several years in Portugal

you clearly don't understand what IPV6 is solving
yes, ipv4 works, but is harder and harder to manage and you have fewer IPv4 available, so their cost is higher and higher
ipv6 have much better traffic control and even having a little higher header, it is usually faster and more reliable than ipv4... and you got MANY more IPs. Those IPs are also easier to manage

The problem is that there are ISP that are lazy and keep being ipv4 only, but most major services are already ipv6 and if you get dual stack, you probably use ipv6 most of the time and don't even know. But dual stack is still needed until those lazy ISP don't fix their setup

Also, ISDN was awsome, compared with dial up.. the main problem was that ISP made it too expensive for most people

It's weird that you understand that Trump is a nutcase and yet you also buy into every manufactured culture-war controversy that his party excretes.

It sounds like you'd like a President who does all the anti-woke culture-war crap that Trump does but with more level-headed economic policies.

The "racism and sexism" you have a problem with is largely a strawman constructed by the right for the right.

Frequently these types of devices (don't specifically know about Brother printers) will have a second account, often with a hard-coded password) end users can't access that only the repair person is supposed to use. Of course those credentials escape into the wild almost immediately.

Multi-function printer/scanner/copier/fax machines have always had the crappiest security of pretty much any common tech device since their introduction. They're surprisingly capable, with massive storage, hard-coded passwords, insecure wireless and bluetooth, analog phone connection, and almost always running a years-outdated version of Linux. Just among the clients of my former employer the FTP site of one was used to host kiddie porn (customer wondered why incoming Internet traffic had spiked), and the wireless connection of another was an intrusion point into a client's otherwise secure network (the attacker sat in a car in the parking lot and got their customer DB).

Yep, for years. Keeps it to a manageable level but even infused with antibiotics it only knocks it down temporarily until it comes roaring back.