The kids are our future adults. It should be pretty obvious that getting them used to the state yanking access is a future problem. I don’t see anything off-color or unreasonable.
Chronic absence is up and truancy is down according to this report. Not really what I’d expect for phone use—both should trend flat or up.
I wonder if there’s a way to validate the hypothesis that post-shutdown, some of the cohort that would have missed a day here and there now see school as optional and miss more days.
Overall, the reported effect is sad and should be addressed. These are people’s lives.
Youth participation in travel club sports is up so they miss more school days due to tournaments. These tend to be the more affluent and motivated students who still achieve good grades and high standardized test scores. I receive warning letters from the school district every year over high absences but it doesn't mean anything and I just throw them in the trash.
Chronic absence numbers are misleading. We all know that they are just placeholder stats for other factors and we should focus on those.
My 3rd grade daughter was unlucky with various illnesses and missed about 12 days this year (so far). I got a letter from her principal attempting to guilt trip me for her "Chronic absence".
I wrote an angry response (in retrospect it was too angry since he had no choice about the letter) where I asked if he would prefer my sending sick children to school.
Her grades (for whatever value grades have in 3rd grade) are fine. I'll take the chance on her reading her "Diary of a wimpy kid" book when sick, or when a sane system would have given a snow day.
> in retrospect it was too angry since he had no choice
Imho you did the right thing. Everyone has a choice.
I did the same (but instead of an email it was an angry speech, face to face), with the exact same question (if they would prefer my sending sick children to school). My child's grades were fine, too. Haven't received any letters after that.
Yes, but that ship sailed. Bernie Sanders used to be for the American worker. He used to block re-settling refugees in his state. Nowadays even he doesn't care to curb immigration or off-shoring. Some people in the Trump admin make motions about curbing some (unnecessary legal) immigration (ala Canada and Australia -vetting for skills needed). Very few want to curb offshoring. Both Democrats and Republicans monetarily benefit from offshoring and increasing competition for American workers. Elon pretends his companies could not run without more imported workers --sure, I get it, you don't want to bother to train a capable local population, much of which is descended from relatively recent immigrants.
Bringing together the money and people to make this stuff happen is the basis. That’s the most impressive part. Debatably the only truly impressive part.
There’s no ideology. You can watch a really big rocket take off every month or two and watch a smaller rocket take off every couple days. I’m sure there are better designs out there… on drawing boards.
Musk thinks that if you crash things enough until it works first time, the problem is solved. Which is fine for something like Falcon. As loads get bigger and heavier, and you start running into margins of performance (for example, raptor engines are required to generate the thrust to lift it). And then, just cause it works the first time, that doesn't mean there is enough margin on the system to not fail due to an external unforseen event for which the narrow margins can't account for.
Pre 2018 Musk before he destroyed his mind with ketamine, sure. Apart from a few very autistic events, I would have also bet on him.
But now, you wanna tell me the person that thought the Cybertruck was a good product is going to solve a very complex problem of reusable heavy launch vehicle? Much less go to Mars? Ok.
> political process means that every district supervisor gets their own rail project
This is part of what people mean by “grift.” Anyway, I’m not right wing. I just want cheap rail done competently. That’s not “not the issue.” As a voter, that is very much an issue for me.
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!
Ah, right, that one with all the ALGs. Kinda NAT64's ancestor, though I have no idea of the evolution/development process.
I don't believe this ever worked at scale, even if it is pretty much NAT64. Particularly the part where IPv4 hosts can reach IPv6 systems with the NAT-PT tracking through DNS what is given out in A records is "a bit much".
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.
reply