Arguably, it's the "news' which got us into this quagmire in the first place.

I can't possibly imagine why anyone would ascribe their "truth" from organizations which have consistently and intentionally lied to the American public. Hubris, I suppose.

I realize you're likely approaching retirement age based on your low slashdot ID (as am I), but the world has not only changed - it's made it apparent that the world we grew up in didn't even exist.

Perhaps you should look into the involvement of various intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad) in the control and manipulation of various esteemed "institutions of truth" like the New York Times, as it relates to things which were obviously false. Or how many of our vanguard institutions were largely subverted by communist interests.

Babies in incubators, remember that one? How about WMDs in Iraq? Jayson Blair scandal is also notable - and let's not forget the complete fabrication which was Russiagate, paraded by media for months without so much as a verification of fact (which, if had they done it with honesty, would've made the whole thing fall apart). We could go way back, to how they (the NYT) suppressed news of the Soviets were in fact not starving their peasants in the 1920s and 1930s so that we would go to war, or we could dial it forward and the 2020s when the media provided years of cover for the "Chinese biolab" genesis of COVID-19 (which has since been acknowledged). We could also most certainly include the official Charlie Kirk narrative, which the media continues to parrot (when it's mentioned at all), and which has been scientifically confirmed as impossible by numerous forensic investigators (largely based on audio recording).

This is just the NYT, mind you - the broader media establishment is just as culpable. Establishment media has long shied away from truthful reporting, instead pushing sensationalism and ideological alignment.

Online news allows people who care about truth to get ahead of these narratives and see them for what they are, or at the very least consider alternative possibilities, before the lies catapult us into wars and ideological witch hunts.

I suppose you still think Oswald was the lone gunman, too, huh?

"Otherwise IPv6 is not in any meaningful way different, better or worse than IPv4."

Tell that to the tech who can't read hex or the guy trying to find a network range in logs using sed/grep on an 80x30 crash cart terminal in a DC, because something broke at 1am.

It is wholly unsuitable to straight up replace IPv4 for these reasons: it isn't a human-accessible protocol.

That's what I meant by "which IPv6?" SLAAC, RAs, DHCPv6, authoritative DNS AAAA with reverse are all basic table stakes to make it useful, which already grossly exceed what small IPv4 business networks have for v4, and there's still another dozen services required to get full interoperability with v4.

And you're forgetting that IPv6 was never intended to run dual stack with v4, that was a hackish afterthought which didn't work for half a damn for over a decade, because v6 wasn't backwards compatible. Needing to deploy v6 to "maintain a global network of peers" is only necessary if IPv6 exists; it serves only the purpose of sustaining itself.

If AMD and Intel were smart, they'd get together with IBM and figure out how to get out of that abusive relationship.

It would likely involve a skunkworks effort to "fix" open source Linux to be a useable desktop. Close it up a bit and then start ripping things out from the top to bottom, then release it as their own thing. LLMs make this much more tenable now than it would've in years past. No reason they couldn't keep the license the same, either.

In a world where "rewrite libreoffice to not be shit" is a tenable project for a small team and individuals are effectively reverse engineering and porting old Windows games to MacOS Apple Silicon in a weekend, I don't see why this couldn't be done. It just requires the intention, these companies have the money to do it.

There's one exceptional gem in the Celeron lineup: the 300A.

You could trivially overclock it about 33% with a FSB kick up from 66MHz to 100MHz, and the CPU had L2 cache (which as you probably recall, basically didn't exist otherwise on Celeron).

They were all just under binned chips, and that 33% was the baseline conservative overclock. It wasn't uncommon to push them past 500MHz with a good cooler. It was the era of peltiers and water blocks starting to take off.

Your mental modality is wired to Windows.

You can get tiling with a 3rd party app, Magnet. It works unobtrusively and I forget it's not native.

There are also Spaces, which is effectively a virtual desktop. It works pretty well. There are numerous tools which make it better (up to full tiling window manager with yabai).

Not sure why you'd complain about the 'out of the box' experience on a desktop OS anymore when there are so many third party options to make it better - particularly when your preference OS is horrible out of the gate on the things which really matter, like stability, memory use, management, and security.

How the hell can this article start with the premise that this is a "Neo killer" and contain the sentence, "We still don't know what Intel will charge for the chip, nor do we know what you'll be able to buy a Core Series 3 laptop for."

"Intel releases chip to compete with $599 Neo, but who the fuck knows what it will cost" is not serious journalism.

I agree with the whole bit about "power users" being... let's go with "misguided" here, but this:

...Okay? You realize you can do that on Windows, too, right? Or Linux, or BSD, or...

And this bit:

GTFO of here with that BS, what could possess you to make such a bullshit claim... oh.

You're just one of those people that thinks your particular slice is the center of the universe. My dude, there are a shit ton more engineers out there in a ton more disciplines than just "software engineer" and the user population you're talking about is a small percentage of the whole.

News At Elevenses.

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).