But… why? (pun intended)

They raised $17M to build what appears to be solvable by some git wrapper scripts that could have been written by AI in 5 minutes?

To me the extra "wat" about this is that if I spend the sub-$1 to get the git wrapper scripts, I can get them exactly the way I want them, instead of being mandated to use the commands they made up. A huge gain for AI is the ability to have exactly the software you personally want, even if nobody else wants it just so.

So they are building the exact opposite of the need that AI brings forward. What they are building is not even median software that is in danger of being replaced (e.g. see Cloudflare spending a week to build "a wordpress"), but something that's the most extreme example of AI-will-replace-this that could possibly exist.

Who will buy this?

The only way this makes sense is as a plea for being acqui-hired (and the project dropped).

I would like this option, to make it easier to run a CI environment truly IPv6-only. As in socket() to create a v4 socket should fail.

seccomp could only do this partially, in that there are other avenues (e.g. io_uring), and I want it to be the case throughout the boot process.

Creating a v4 socket should map to a v6 address lower down, making v6 transparent to v4 only applications.

So run fc00::/7 addresses with IPv6 NAT.

That addresses all of your concerns, and you have that option.

That would be fine if it were default. My router doesn't even have that option.

Sure you can do that

So what's the point in ipv6?

You can do fc00::/7 in addition to public addresses so your lights don't have public address while your phone does.

I mean, so many reasons. Not the least of which is carrier grade NAT is out. And that alone implies so much cost savings, performance increase, and home user flexibility .

I'm struggling to assume good faith on your question, since it's so strange. I feel like I need to start from scratch explaining the internet, since asking this question reveals a lack of knowledge about everything networking.

I don't have CG Nat, I choose a proper ISP. Opening a hole in my ipv6 firewall or forwarding a port in in my ipv4 firewall is effectively the same thing, I define the policy (allow traffic arriving on $address on tcp/1234 to this server on vlan 12) and it goes live.

Away from home, like I am at the moment, I vpn all my traffic back home, to work, or to a mullvad endpoint. Neither the hotel wifi nor tethering off my phone gives me a working ipv6 address (anything other than an fe80::) anyway.

All my workflows work on ipv4 only. Some workflows (especially around the corporate laptop) don't work on ipv6 only - maybe that's a zscaler thing, maybe its a windows thing.

As such the only choice is ipv4 with ipv6 as a nice to have, or ipv4 only.

Personally I prefer the smaller attack surface of a single network protocol.

Sounds like ipv6 is a good solution for people who choose ISPs with CGNat. It doesn't matter to me if I vpn home via my ipv6 endpoint or my ipv4 endpoint, I expose a very minimal set of services.

I guess if I wanted to host more than 4 servers on the same port at home it would be handy, as my ISP will only allow me to have 4 public IPs without paying for more. I don't host anything other than my wireguard endpoint and some UDP forwards which I specific redirect to where I want to go (desktop, laptop, server) - another great feature of nat, but yes nat66 can do that too.

But where's the killer feature of ipv6. Is it just CGNat on poor ISPs?

I'm not sure where that long story is supposed to convey. Cool story, bro.

> Sounds like ipv6 is a good solution for people who choose ISPs with CGNat.

I mean… this is just "not even wrong".

> Is it just CGNat on poor ISPs?

I already said no to this.

Look, like I said, you appear to be unaware of so much about everything about the Internet, running an ISP, running a service provider, corporate networks, ISP-customer relationships, small businesses, BGP viable policies, cloud economics, etc… that it's hard to know where to even start. And while HN is great for some things, HN comments are just not suitable for something that is shaped more like a course or internship. This can't even be described as "gaps" in your knowledge.

I'm put off by your confidence without the knowledge, and of course also by your implication that if you have CGNat then you should have just worked a little harder to not be so poor, to pay a better ISP, or you should move to a more expensive place where other ISP options exist. Of course ignoring that this doesn't scale to the population at all, and extra address bits are very relevant to scaling.

I don't directly deal with public peering, I leave that to my colleagues, my only practical BGP knowlege is on private ASes.

Your shitty ISP doesn't give you an ipv4 access, that's fine. ipv4 address blocks cost $20 an address and are cheaper today in real terms than in 2016, and have been coming down in nominal terms for years.

ipv6 makes sense at a global scale, it still makes no sense for many individuals with a good ISP, mainly because of how it was implemented, too much stuff still relies on ipv4. If you have to also run ipv4 then why run ipv6.

I have no services I use that are ipv6 only

I have services that are ipv4 only, so I have to run a 6:4 nat

I want a stateful firewall because it's not 1999

I want to handoff to multiple consumer ISPs, using PBR, not running BGP, so I need to use NAT66 (changing IPs isn't good enough, I want to round-robin based on various rules, send traffic to dropbox via one ISP, send udp via another, etc)

I have software which doesn't work on ipv6 on a client, so I have to run CLAT on the device

But not all my local devices can run CLAT, I thus have to run dual stack to use ipv6 successfully.

Thus as I'm running ipv4 anyway, and running NAT, there is no benefit over running ipv4 only. IPV6 adds more things to go wrong (NAT64/DNS64), but offers no benefits.

Even without the ipv6 client requirement I still need to run both NAT64 and NAT66. I have an ipv6 only network at home which I put phones on. It works, but there's no benefit other than keeping awareness of ipv6.

Now sure, the reason that ipv4 addresses are cheap is because other people are moving to ipv6 (especially mobile), and relying on 464 gateways, with 46 in their CPE and 64 on the ISP level. That's great.

But that doesn't change the equation for someone with a choice of ISPs, as they can choose an ISP which provides them with static ipv4 addresses.

Address space isn't the only benefit.

I'll just leave this here if you want to find out https://www.catchpoint.com/benefits-of-ipv6

But that doesn't allow to bitch about it so - no.

This does not read like it was written by a professional. Non-professionals writing licenses and T&Cs cause problems because no organization, for profit or not, wants to be dragged into court to get a "common sense" definition of a word or comma defined, at their expense.

I've heard of large organizations reaching out to places who use amateur T&Cs and licenses, saying "if we give you $X, can you dual license this as MIT, Apache, BSD, or hell anything standard?".

> Access is not conditioned on approval

Is this obvious enough legalese to not waste tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if you get sued?

Note before you reply: I will not argue with you about how obvious it is. If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.

> > Access is not conditioned on approval

I practice law in California. I've written terms of service that many, many people here on HN will have agreed to. I read this line and didn't know what it meant, or what it intended to mean.

That said:

> If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.

There's no good way to validate lawyerdom on public social media like HN. And while the average lawyer probably remembers enough from law school or bar exams to know slightly more about Web terms of service and legal drafting than the average person, there's nothing to stop non-lawyers from reading up and learning. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog is a great, public source covering cases on ToS and other issues, for example.

The Bar monopolizes representation within legal institutions. Don't cede the law itself to lawyers.

Well… in a court the people with legal training run the show. And keep in mind that you don't have to technically lose, in order to lose both money and time.

Oh I agree, I'm just saying that I understood what was meant

You can be competent without being a lawyer, sure. But if you see the other replies to my comment, you see why I would use this as a filter.

The dumbest person can be right, but as a lawyer, your guess is much better.

I don't cede the law. It's just that if I find this unclear, then J Random Hn commenter's opinion wouldn't reduce my risk.

I won't be acting based on your opinion either, of course, but the quality of your reply is clearly in a different class from the other two.

You're right. I can see how I phrased that poorly. I meant what I said, but it also implies something that I don't.

It's not a requirement for a contract to be written by a lawyer, any more than a python script needs to be written by a professional coder. But in both cases the result tends to have problems. (skipping here how LLMs fit into this)

The way in which scripts and contracts can be "fixed" later are different, with no clever sound byte about just how these apples are different from oranges.

> I will not argue with you about how obvious it is.

Good. Don't. Because it is exceedingly plain, if concise, English.

I'm guessing it means that your use of the website is not contingent on you accepting (approving of) the terms presented. But there are plenty of other ways it could be reasonably interpreted. For instance, your access of the website is not contingent on the website operator approving said access.

> I'm guessing it means that your use of the website is not contingent on you accepting

I don't think it says that at all. Because "accepting" is the right word for this interpretation, as you point out. "Approval" is a different thing altogether. You can accept something without approving of it -- that's the main message in the Serenity Prayer and hundreds of self-help books that try to reframe that message, maybe to help it sink in, maybe just to grift a little.

If it was literally spelled out as "Your access is not conditioned on your approval" that could almost be taken as a threat -- you will access this whether you want to or not.

> For instance, your access of the website is not contingent on the website operator approving said access.

To me, this is clearly what it says. "(Your) access is not conditioned on (our) approval."

But, of course, since you read it differently, I have to agree that perhaps it's not as clear as I thought.

However...

Contracts and agreements, if ambiguous, are always interpreted in a light most favorable to the party who didn't draft them.

So, absolute worst case (for the website owner), if we combine your reading and mine, it reads "Your access is not conditioned on either your approval of these terms, or our approval of you."

Somehow, I think the author is OK with this.

This is exactly the kind of comment I politely asked people not to make.

Did you see the actual lawyer saying they don't know what it means?

A statement that "If you're not a lawyer then I'm not." is blunt, not particularly polite or not.

In any case, (a) it's not a request, and (b) if you truly want to control the narrative, then perhaps you should just do that from your own blog.

Sounds like a smart strategy then. Use an amateur license. People who just want to do stuff know they have your blessing. Corporations will stay away or pay up, not because you made them, but of their own volition. Everyone is happy.

Of course even better is to simply have no explicit license, especially for something like code. Normal people can assume they can do whatever they'd like (basically, public domain). Lawyers will assume they cannot. The only thing stopping someone is their own belief in their self restrictions. i.e. you can use the thing if and only if you don't believe in my authority on the matter.

No explicit license is not basically public domain. In most jurisdictions it means the default is full copyright, so permission is less clear, not more. The practical effect is usually to increase ambiguity rather than grant freedom.

That's the point: it's a rejection of the premise that you need these sorts of terms. You treat the law as the farce it has turned itself into. If people reject the farce, they can use it. If they support the farce, they can't (well, they can, but they think they can't). In a sense, an anarchist's viral FOSS license.

You are essentially saying that shoplifting is legal because as a civilian you are unlikely to get caught.

This is a terrible take. All it takes is a litigious jerk, and you could get bankrupt. And that jerk will be legally in the right.

I'm not. In saying people who want to share their work should just do so. If your goal is to not have terms, don't have terms. Don't lend credibility to the idea that you need to by default.

Consider the war on drugs. Recreational marijuana is still highly illegal everywhere in the US, but there's businesses selling it that operate in plain view. How did we get there? Because people continued to point out how the law delegitimized itself until enforcement has started to become impossible.

You can't unilaterally opt out of copyright. Not in a legal sense. In many jurisdictions not even on the creator side. E.g. Europe commonly doesn't even give creators the option to declare work "public domain". You have to be more specific than that, or it still reserves you the right to sue (and win) against any recipients.

If you want to follow Vaclav Havel's "Living in truth", then I commend you for it. But that's always a legal risk, and we're no longer talking about the law.

You are essentially saying that walking is safe because as a civilian you are unlikely to get robbed.

This is a terrible take. All it takes is an angry mugger, and you could get killed.

Walking is not illegal.

That's why your analogy doesn't work.

The stated reason in the article seems like Switzerland should be as good as EU, if not better.

> I have decided to move as many services and subscriptions as possible from non-EU countries to the EU or to switch to European service providers. The reasons for this are the current global political situation and improved data protection.

"or switch to European service providers". EU or not, CH is still in Europe, so would qualify?

Integer promotion rules in C are so deceptive.

I don't believe there's anybody who can reason about them at code skimming speeds. It's probably the best place to hide underhanded code.

Wouldn't "underhanded code" there require some ability to control UB?

Doesn't need to be UB, you can write expressions like: "some_s8_var < some_u32_var" and people will be had. Note that is not the same as "some_s8_var < some_u8_var".

-Wextra catches stuff like this, alas I know of a few people that think "-Wextra is evil" (even though annoying warnings can be selectively disabled)

Fair enough. Given that things like `if (uid = 0) {}` can become a privilege escalation in the right context, surely code that takes the opposite branch of what it looks like is also dangerous in the wrong hands.

I still remember being expected to pass -Wpedantic (and probably also -Wextra) in university.

Your arguments (explanations?) would seem way more relevant if they didn't go 100% counter to observation.

I don't know why you're trying to explain an outcome that is opposite of the observed outcome.

Are you saying that while more money is correlated with less fertility (the fact), that somehow even more money will reverse the trend and start going the other way?

Based on observed data, one could almost make the case that if only billionaires start stealing from the poor even more, then birth rates should go up.

It wasn't really supposed to be about money vs fertility rates. I was trying to provide some observed examples of why having more money might mean more expensive kids. Or how being poor means the cost and expectations are lower.

I've always believed that it isn't money itself, but access to healthcare and education that lower fertility rates. Money correlates really strongly with access to healthcare and education.

Having good education and healthcare leads to birth control and maybe an abortion if the BC fails.

When a family of three is making $15K a year, do you believe baby four, five and six were planned out in agonizing detail? Or do you think maybe they weren't planned at all?

And I do believe more money going around would help. If the perspective is "I can't afford it", those who are doing OK will not have children if they can help it.

It's a well written post, but this:

> The fact is, most of the freedom I had before kids, I never used.

That just seems like close to the definition of freedom. I have the freedom to go outside right now and eat dirt. I've never used it.

If you didn't do something then I guess you didn't want to, more than the things you did choose to do instead.

The only way you'd have enough life to do "most" of the things you'd be free to do, is if you're not free to do but a tiny thing.

> See what I did there?

Yup. Made no sense at all, is what. A UAE passport makes you free to visit 181 countries either visa free or visa-on-arrival. It's still freedom even if you don't take the time to visit all 181 countries.

It's not even an interesting paradox. It's just an obvious part of freedom.

Most people don't visit more than 35 countries. An Afghanistan passport gives you access to 35 countries.

So you agree that for text, it should NEVER be used. And you are only arguing for lazy loading of images?