ajnin

IPv6 brings more address space but also a whole bunch of other stuff, it is much more complex and changes basically everything to how you manage a network. The fact that it's not been widely adopted after 30 years indicates that people generally think the tradeoff is not worth it.

I've been a user of the Java/Maven ecosystem for decades. Maven has had local caching of artifacts for as long as I can remember, and there are several ways to set up a private repository mirror for caching and reproducibility.

I find puzzling such comments that present things as if they were possible in a capitalist society. People still need to buy food, clothes, pay rent. Are those off-the-beaten-path, uncorrupted pursuits going to provide for that? We would need a major societal change, the undoing of centuries of economic structure, and we're not heading that way just a little bit.

Self hosted means you host it yourself. I.e. you run the software. Running on your own home machine is definitely self-hosted. Hosting it on a VPS in some datacenter still is. Running it in a cloud platform somewhere is stretching it but I'd say that sill is. SaaS definitely is not self hosting even if the software is open source. The important part is that you're the one in control of the software.

A cover story for what ? We have eyewitnesses of Hiroshima. We have videos of atomic bomb tests. We have seismic recordings of underground blasts. Multiple countries claim to have independently developed the bomb. A coverup on a global scale, lasting for decades, implicating people from the military, scientists, everyday people from many countries, without a single person breaking secrecy. Why ?

That's the second puzzling comment you've posted on this subject. Are you suggesting atom bombs don't exist?

One of the main problems with UX in my opinion is that someone arrives, sees a problem in their own eyes, and try to make changes and impose their views on everyone. Because a lot of that is personal preference, taste, habits, ability, and so on. You can't have a one size fits all solution. If you try you end up discovering that there are many dimensions and that people are scattered around in the space. And either you try to remove dimensions, and yay suddenly you have a one-size-fits-all solution but only because you removed choice (Google is a big offender in that regard), or you realize that you have no right to impose your views, get more humble, and propose a new solution, expanding the choice of others (but that is rare).

I don't know what the parent was thinking about, but the examples where the USA intervenes militarily in some country under the guise of justice while refusing any accountability for itself are many. The latest example to date is capturing Maduro because he's supposedly the leader of a drug gang to have him tried in a US court. So the concept of supranational justice and "assault on state sovereignty" is fine when it is in the interest of the USA.

Glossing over that too long article, the main proposition seems to be :

> The registries should charge companies, and pay maintainers

They already centralize packages, centralizing money flows is bound to cause more issues. By the way, npm is owned by GitHub, and GitHub is owned by Microsoft. "Your payment for your leftpad package has been transferred to your Microsoft Wallet". No thanks.

I just think there's a fundamental disconnect between the goals here. If I write free software, I don't write it to get paid, I write it to benefit others. If someone takes my work without also contributing back, I will get upset. The solution is not to give me money, that's not the spirit. We should not force people to pay for OSS but we should force them to give back to the community.

That's why copyleft licences like GPL are superior. People licence their work under BSD-style licences that are the equivalent of putting a box of stuff on the side of the road with a "free, help yourself" sign and then get upset when people do. BSD-style licences take away as many rights from users and authors as they can. GPL-style licences give as many rights to the users as they can. That's basically completely opposite philosophies. Use the right licence folks.

Memory factories cost billions to tens of billions, "investors" aren't going to spend that kind of money if they are not reasonably certain that they are going to make a profit, and the market is very uncertain right now with everybody bracing for a bubble burst at any moment. It's not the first time there has been such a shortage in the computer parts market, and the oligopoly, be it RAM or hard drives manufacturers, has always managed to keep prices high and production low enough to avoid a price crash after recovery.

Copperhead directly edits the KiCad files so that is the CLI version of that Astra demo.

Here's a plan to build a reactor that generates unlimited energy, at the human scale anyway : take a lot of hydrogen. Put it together until there is enough mass to spontaneously start thermonuclear reactions. Then it will start generating lots of energy for a long time. Having a plan does not mean 9 billion people on Earth are going to be able to build the thing. Then it does not mean either that they are going to be able to use that energy to do something. You need also physical things on which that energy can act, and that's not going to appear magically.

> we should not allow everyone access to unlimited intelligence

Who's we ? Who's going to decides who has access to "unlimited intelligence" ? An AI ? Why would the AI be better than a human ?

> One with no off switch.

Whe're not living in the Matrix, such a thing is not possible. If it were it would be a likelier candidate for the Fermi paradox than what you're proposing.