We are too far away from the last real war in Europe, which was WWII, and forgot how massive thing it is. Let's start saying that a war or a preparation for it is an experience that cannot be expressed wholly by words. Our current life doesn't seem to be anything like that. That's because, IMHO, the war shenanigan is a forced artificial thing, imposed by background global forces just to sell some more weapons and spread some fear and worry. Not much more will happen.
This incident validates the opinion that for an US citizen, it's better to hand over his private data to a foreign (read Chinese) cloud company than a US one.
It might be that the "secret owner" had an obsession to liberalise the song field, like the book one, and erroneously thought he could get away indefinitely. Songs are not books as they are backed by much stronger, concentrated and dedicate to kill piracy capital.
It is indeed big news IF the sample is not polluted from the ample existence of nucleotides in earth. Using the Bayes theorem the possibility of seeded life from the universe is not negligible any more. But the geological time scales bring us not far more.
Related:
"A 29-year-old employee, identified as Chamel Abdulkarim, was arrested for allegedly starting a massive six-alarm fire that destroyed a Kimberly-Clark sanitary paper warehouse in Ontario, California, on April 7, 2026."
He said "All you had to do was pay us enough to live"
And this was caused not by a homeless or unemployed.
Filming himself doing something that will get him years or even decades in prison suggests he wasn’t exactly of completely sound mind when he did that.
Similar here with the guy going straight from the crime scene to OpenAI HQ to get caught
I’d be curious to hear your opinion on things like Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech then. I’m not defending the violence in this case, to be sure, but like, in general, I disagree that violence is always the irrational choice.
My point is violence can be rational but you should at least attempt to get away with it, so you can carry on afterwards.
It's hard to effect any sort of change from a prison cell, violent or otherwise, so it's irrational to deliberately get yourself locked up if your aim is to change things
It's extremely difficult to compete with the US SW companies. Their products are so engaging and attractive that anyone till up to the leaders are tempted to use. It's not surprising that EU's attempt to de-USAisation happens with Linux/OSS and not with an in-house prop SW because it's unable to write one. Also it doesn't happen without cries and pain. We speak for an endeavour to bring a 90% share of a beloved product to 3% and vice versa for a nerdy "cold" one. I keep a long lasting pop corn bag to follow the numbers.
If IPv6 doesn't dominate in the next, let's say, 10 years, they might publish the IPv8 which will be an 64bit space, backwards compatible with IPv4. It will be the only case where a newer version of software comes back closer to an older one.
How do you plan to let IPv4 (32 bit address space) actually address and communicate with an IPv8 (64 bit address space) host? You don't have enough bits to identify the v8 host.
Something like 1:2:3:4:a:b:c:d where the most significant 32bits are a valid IPv4. The kernel figures out and keep all others the same (NAT etc). We extend the address space, not invent a new stack. The IPv6 critics shout out that this would be a viable solution.
Okay, so you've figured out how to make v4 addressable from v8. Good job. That lets v8 hosts address a v4 host via a v8 address.
How are you going to make v8 addressable from v4? Because you need to do this too for communication to work.
Also, you've made v4 addressable from v8, and you're about to explain how you make v8 addressable from v4... but that's just addressing, i.e. identifying the right host. How are you going to actually send packets from v8 to v4, and also from v4 to v8?
> The IPv6 critics shout out that this would be a viable solution.
But they never bother to understand enough of the problem to contribute anything useful. Either they can't come up with something that works, or they come up with something that they didn't realize v6 already did.
> How are you going to make v8 addressable from v4?
I expected this question and have thought about it. Here is an idea: all nodes (PCs, routers etc) run an updated stack, which sends/receives 64bit addresses. If it receives 1:2:3:4:0:0:0:0, that's v4 and continues as such. It's on the ISP when the switch happens because they deliver the addresses. The user notices nothing. Edge cases can arise and be handled accordingly.
The update from 32-to-64 will be massively pushed to all kernels and userspaces in a short time so to shorten outages.
At what point could I confidently publish the addresses 1:2:3:4:0:0:0:1 and 1:2:3:4:0:0:0:2 in DNS records for people to reach those two servers? After my ISP has switched, or after everybody's ISP has switched?
There are two groups that should update to v8 in order to be fully functional: users' OS net stack and ISPs' infra.
The incompatibility of IPvs between two endpoints can be solved by a couple of mechanisms. One is to make a preflight check if all nodes support v8, another is to start with a flag isv8=1 and change it along the path. If a single node is still at v4, all the communication continues v4-like (the v8 nodes send 0 at the ls32b).
It will be a gradual migration, in some regions faster or slower, but it will be SEAMLESS for the user, without the awful v6 UX that we have now.
The answer comes from the suggested design: you update your DNS right after you run the new stack, irrespective of what others (ISPs and users) do. The records will initially still function as v4 (discard the lb32b). Only when all others switch, they will enable their full length.
Obviously there should be simulations and refining to avoid edge cases and conflicts. I will not design the full spec.
So anybody without the new stack loses access to your site, because they're querying for the A record that you removed. How is this "a gradual migration" or "expanding the address space without inventing a new stack"?
Nobody will want to switch to the new stack if it means instantly losing clients that don't have the new stack yet, so the only way to switch would be to coordinate everybody on the planet to switch simultaneously. This is as far away from a gradual deployment as you can get. A flag day for the Internet isn't viable, no matter how much you shout it.
These are not edge case questions we're asking here. They're fundamental questions about how to expand the v4 address size without ultimately doing the same things v6 had to do. You don't need to design the full spec, but you don't get to argue we should replace v6 if the best alternative approach you can come up with works the same way v6 does and has the same limitations v6 does.
So you haven't solved the incompatibility at all. Your v8 requires the client, server and everything between them to support v8 or it has to fall back to using v4, just like v6 does.
> There are two groups that should update to v8 in order to be fully functional: users' OS net stack and ISPs' infra.
A lot of software hardcodes AF_INET or sockaddr_in, and so can only handle 32-bit addresses. Also, there's the end-user's border router, and any internal routers on the client or server side, and the LANs on the client and server sides. There are databases, protocols and data structures that store IP addresses. Any attempt to use v8 with any of these will break them even if half of the v8 address is set to zeros, because they can't handle the 64 bits of a v8 address. They'll either reject the address or it'll corrupt the next 32 bits of memory. A seamless update to the OS net stack and ISP infra isn't sufficient to make them work with v8, because they'll still be limited to 32 bits.
I understand that your core idea is to say that a subset of the v8 address space maps directly to the v4 address space, so that you can convert that subset to v4 to work with the above things. This idea itself isn't bad; it's a perfectly sensible backwards compatibility mechanism that's used by v6 too. You're correct that it allows just that subset to be passed to an application over an AF_INET socket, used to send/receive v4 packets to the corresponding v4 address and so on. This approach is seamless if you stick to exposing the addresses as v4 addresses rather than as v8, because then they could be handled the same way v4 addresses are.
The problem is, you can only make it seamless by hiding the full v8 addresses and pretending they're v4, which can only be done for a small fraction of v8 addresses. What about the rest of them? You haven't actually extended v4's address space past 32 bits, so if you want to use v8's extra addresses you'll have to expose the full v8 addresses as v8 addresses, which is no longer seamless because that's a whole new stack the user and their software has to deal with.
If it was possible to seamlessly switch to bigger addresses, there would be no reason to restrict yourself to the subset of v8 addresses that end in :0:0:0:0 in the first place. You're doing that because using bigger addresses isn't seamless, which is an acknowledgement that a seamless upgrade to bigger addresses isn't possible. It would be if they were the same size, but then you've failed your goal of extending the address space.
So no, you can't claim this upgrade would be seamless unless you can remove the part that's only in there because it's not.
> If a single node is still at v4, all the communication continues v4-like (the v8 nodes send 0 at the ls32b).
If a single node is still at v4, that node will drop your v8 packets even if you set the ls32b to 0, because it doesn't understand the v8 packet format in the first place. This node will prevent you from switching to v8 even if you stick with the limited v4-compatible subset of v8 addresses.
> it will be SEAMLESS for the user, without the awful v6 UX that we have now
That "awful v6 UX" is the same UX you'd get with v8 if you tried to use the expanded address space. Or, if you limited yourself to just the v4-mapped subset of v6 then it would be just as seamless as v8 is. This should be obvious, because you already lived through OSs adding support for v6 in their net stacks and it was seamless so long as you stuck to the part of v6 which maps directly to v4. Which is what you were asking for, wasn't it?
So basically, instead of extending the v4 address space you're going to make a new stack and everybody needs to switch to it to be able to communicate with v8. That's the exact thing you said you weren't doing.
> If it receives 1:2:3:4:0:0:0:0, that's v4 and continues as such
1:2:3:4:0:0:0:0 isn't v4, so it can't "continue as v4"... perhaps you meant that a router somewhere converts the packet to a v4 packet, but this is still only the v8->v4 direction. How do you map v8 into v4 so that the destination can reply?
> The update from 32-to-64 will be massively pushed to all kernels and userspaces in a short time so to shorten outages.
Right, add support for the new stack everywhere like we did with v6's 32-to-128 update. But just saying that it'll be done in a short time doesn't mean it will be.
Had my workspace account blocked, too. It was an early google account (long before they offered email with it) on a free tier they stopped offering in 2012 - in 2022 they made all free tiers pay. I thought I would get downgraded to the free tier, but nope, all was gone and blocked. Not even google keep (note taking).
The full text of Google's slogan is: Don't be evil (to customers that click ads from which our largest income share comes but not to developers who in the future might be our competitors).
It's just too long to fit on a T-shirt but not to memorise.
reply