What I don’t understand is why coexistence was so important. TFA notes a lot of protocols were in use back then.
Also what’s with all the problems? I’ve had RA packets leak across VLANs via firewall misconfigurations, some my fault and some not. I get that people designing internet protocols had a lot to think about, but why am I fighting stuff like this?
> What I don’t understand is why coexistence was so important.
Military, corporate, tech... it isn't. (If your people like flag day migrations. It's… "a choice".) But if you have to explain to an end user why some things work and some don't, you're just f'd.
And note "coexistence" here means that an end host can implement IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time, without them interacting at all. Imagine if you had to choose between IPv4 and IPv6 on your devices, maybe something like "you need a 2nd network card". Can you imagine anyone switching to the less popular protocol?
The article describes coexistence as both dual-stack and connectivity between single-stack IPv6 and single-stack IPv4 host. And that in the autor's opinion all the complexity is in the latter, not in the dual-stack
You raise a good point that we also should't take dual- stack for granted. But I think the more precise question 'why not dual-stack as the only coexistence option' also seems like a good one, and one the article does not explore or even acknowledge
Dual-stack was the only coexistence option for a long time, until NAT64 came around. There were a whole bunch of attempts at compatibility, e.g. with "::1.1.1.1" and "::ffff:1.1.1.1" as IPv6 addresses, they just didn't go anywhere. (Well, not quite, the latter is in POSIX and in socket libraries around the planet. Doesn't leave the host though. At least it's not supposed to. I have some horror stories…)
NAT64 started happening because it solves real problems — large eyeball networks, particularly mobile phone networks, didn't want to pay for twice as large table sizes on their routers and twice the maintenance effort. So they made IPv6 end hosts capable of connecting to IPv4 systems. But this is 2010 era, IPv6 was ≈15 years old at that point!
The whole world can't migrate all of their hardware on a whim. There was a period of time when it was a very common quip to say that Amazon would have to buy every new IPv6 compatible router in the world for a year if they wanted to upgrade their infra. I don't know if the urban legend is true or not, but the fact that it sounded plausible is a good enough of an example.
I found it approachable but ultimately difficult to do what I want with its output, and I struggled to keep track of what I’m doing and what happened where. Some more hierarchy would be nice.
Sounds like a problem. Luckily it turns out my phone has two cameras and a laser dot projector pointed at my face right now. Not hard to imagine a future solution to this issue were we to pass this legislation, sadly…
> GPT‑Rosalind is now available … for qualified customers …
It’s kind of gross to make money off her name (if that’s what’s happening) posthumously. It’s a complicated story anyway. IIRC her sister referred to it as “the Cult of Rosalind” when people were cashing in on books about her.
I'd rather the AI companies make up names, or name their products things like "Clod" than use my name (if they were to ask) - as no matter how good it looks today eventually it'll be some form of laughingstock.
At least GPT is pretty "unique" and they've not polluted search (except for those looking for the GUID Partition Table, RIP).
Any name you pick will immediately override anything that comes before - naming a model Socrates would confuse searches, for example (and it's why I hate the rename of iTunes to "Music" which is a generic term!).
I haven’t noticed much hype around Codex. I have both and use Claude for broad work off my phone and Codex on my computer to clean up the mess. Crank reasoning to the highest setting for each. Claude is extremely unreliable for me, and Codex feels like more of a real tool. I’d say Codex has a bit of a learning curve. Nothing much has changed for me in the past month or two (whenever GPT 5.4 came out).
I’m a First Amendment absolutist and AFAIK foreign students can protest, but this video shows to me it probably crosses the line into something else. Exactly what, I have no opinion.
Okay, but is being present at a protest where others push through a barrier enough for the first amendment to no longer apply or do we know he was one of the people doing the barrier breaking? The original post implies he bailed out after only 5 minutes - quite possibly because he wasn't on board with the (relatively mild) escalation. At this point, we don't know. But if he did cross that line, he should be criminally prosecuted like the students with American citizenship (if they even are...) and not presumed guilty being punished via the immigration system without any kind of trial.
Can we charge all Jan 6ers with the murder or manslaughter of the congressional security police officers?
There's the case of the getaway driver in a bank robbery that resulted in murder also getting murder, and that is basically what the two poster up is advocating for.
The police would've been justified in arresting everyone present the second they broke through the door with the explicit intent of disrupting the career fair. This is exactly the kind of mayhem and violence that the police exist in order to deter; if the police were unwilling or unable to arrest the protesters, the event organizers should have done so.
But that is not what is happening, and they have stated that they were at the event for a short period of time, quite possibly at the portion that didn’t occur inside the event.
The willingness to assume one version of events, and then go down that path to award consequences, is premature.
It sounds like you're trying to shift the legal goalposts of "peaceful" into something more like "inoffensive" or "respectful" or "polite".
For example, you have a First Amendment right to "peacefully" hurl the most awful insults you can think of at a police officer.
If that police officer feels "antagonized"--or even if your goal was to hurt their feelings--that does not permit them to abuse the special power of their workplace to attack you. If they try anyway, now that's a real crime.
P.S.: Supposing you went beyond rude, like violating a noise-ordinance with a megaphone, or "littering" with pamphlets, or trespassing to chain yourself to a tree... The First Amendment bars authorities from going: "Ah hah! Now I can sneak in some punches for that shit you said earlier!"
No, that's simply not allowed to be part of it. There is no crime where "saying stuff that pissed the policeman off" is an enhancing factor. It's difficult, but that's why we pay them the big bucks for a job that's safer than landscaping or bartending or delivering food.
In practice this abuse of authority occurs because we live in an imperfect world... But it's still evil, and we shouldn't accept it or endorse it.
While the rest of your comment is sound, the police do not make "big bucks" by any stretch of the imagination and there's a serious citation needed for the job being less dangerous than the ones you listed. I am pretty sure I have never read multiple news articles like "landscaper shot while sitting in vehicle filling paperwork" or "armed man commits suicide by bartender".
I have numerous friends and acquaintances in this career field. Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole. The barrier to entry is low and highly competitive but the selection process is a suboptimal filter. The pay isn't great compared to so many other things, but it's similar to the military in that qualified people show up and get trained to do the job which leads to an entire career, just without all the big downsides of military life. All these things combined is why bad apples can get into positions of authority and commit abuses.
>Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole
Actually, it doesn't even make the top 25[0]. So no, not really all that dangerous. Being around police, especially with a high melanin content is definitely more dangerous than being police.
To channel George Carlin: "It's not that I don't like the police, I just feel better when they're not around."
Policing is not a particularly dangerous job, police are people with fragile egos.
Cops are violent towards their intimate partners at a rate many many many times typical. Something like 25-40% of cops are abusers.
Sources:
Johnson, L.B. (1991). On the front lines: Police stress and family well-being. Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families House of Representatives: 102 Congress First Session May 20 (p. 32-48).
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Neidig, P.H., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. Police Studies, Vol. 15 (1), p. 30-38.
Feltgen, J. (October, 1996). Domestic violence: When the abuser is a police officer. The Police Chief, p. 42-49.
Lott, L.D. (November, 1995). Deadly secrets: Violence in the police family. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, p. 12-16.
Oehme, K., et al. (2011). Protecting Lives, Careers, and Public Confidence: Florida's efforts to prevent officer-involved domestic violence. Family Court Review 84, 85.
They wear masks in case their political opponents take exception to their actions and hunt them down later and hurt their families.
(This seems like an extremely dubious justification to me, but I've been told on HN that this is the reason that ICE wear masks, so why wouldn't it apply here...?)
Guy seems to have earned himself a ban from entering Cornell’s premises[1]. They seem to be letting him finish [2], which tracks—they’re pretty chill IME. Something might’ve went down…
This disruption, according to a University statement, involved shoving police officers, making guests of the University feel threatened and denying students the opportunity to experience the career fair.
Sun reporters on the scene did not observe any physical violence towards law enforcement but did note distress among recruiters, students and administration involved in the career fair.[1]
Also what’s with all the problems? I’ve had RA packets leak across VLANs via firewall misconfigurations, some my fault and some not. I get that people designing internet protocols had a lot to think about, but why am I fighting stuff like this?
reply