ebiederm

I believe the folks worrying about IPv6 only are just looking ahead to a possible future. Especially when they are looking at the question of do all the pieces work locally, vs do popular domains support it.

There are domains like T-mobile US that are IPv6 only already. T-mobile runs NAT in the network so that all of IPv4 is NAT'd to IPv6.

I do think it is reasonable to expect there will become a time when IPv6 is pervasive enough, that new deployments will target users with IPv6 rather than IPv4.

Once IPv6 becomes the choice to support to get new customers, it is reasonable to expect that IPv4 support will start deteriorating and will eventually fade away.

I will be very surprised if we don't hit that tipping point in my lifetime. Say the next 30 years.

I seem to remember the ML guys went down this route. I believe they called it regions.

From what little I read in the literature I seem to recall that there were enough programs with quite a bit more memory usage that they decided this approach was a dead end.

Does anyone know anymore details?

Since 2006 first as part of the Ottawa Linux Symposium and later as part of the Linux Plumbers Conference we had yearly in person meetings.

We had public discussions on the Linux Kernel mailing list and later on the containers list.

It was a collaborative effort from vserver, openvz, IBM, and Linux Networx, and google. I think those were all the original groups, my apologies if I have forgotten someone.

After Docker made a splash I occasionally asked other developers if they had any contacts at Docker. To the best of my knowledge we never received a bug report, or a feature request. No one from Docker ever showed up at any of our meetings.

I know at one point I wanted to let someone know that Docker they were holding the pieces wrong when it came to security.

Eventually I think one of the OpenVZ guys wound up working for Docker for a time. But that was quite late in the timeline.

I was passing through RedHat about the time of the spat you mention. My impression at the time was that Docker never worked well with anyone, and after some frustrations trying to cooperate the RedHat userspace folks decided it was easier to get a real standard without Docker.

At that point I had gotten the unprivileged user namespace support into RedHat's kernel and changed a lot of minds about it's utility.

I don't remember Docker ever picking up unprivileged user namespace support and as a result was a security disaster waiting to happen.

It felt to me like Docker treated the userspace API for containers like most folks treat the POSIX API. Fixed in stone. In fact there was a lot of wiggle room, and opportunity to shape things for anyone who was willing to dive deep into the technical details.

Did you ever reach out to the kernel folks while working on Docker?

My memory from that era when Docker was getting big was our biggest user completely ignored us. Which I thought was quite odd at the time.

It is amazing to see how fast these bounds are moving.

I know people who routinely check the generated machine code of compilers to see if it is reasonable or buggy.

When it is bad they either rewrite their source code or write assembly.

A tool do a job good enough that people don't have to do the job by hand does not mean people stop caring about the quality of the job.

Spitting out code as fast as our fingers could type has never been the job. There has always been a lot of think time.

Which is why the productivity of people of people has never been correlated with typing speed.

In other jobs productivity is correlated with typing speed and in those jobs a typing speed like 60wpm is part of the job requirements.

What I remember hearing is that exercises and practice are needed to transform words on the page to something you know and master.

What I remember being questioned is does it make sense to do those exercises as homework or would they be better in school.

Or on the flip side should school get out early like 11 or noon, like I think the german gymnasium does and have all the exercises as homework.

The US system where children get out of school at 15:30 and still have a bunch of homework seems a little lopsided someplace.

The 3 month break in-between school years is definitely questionable.

I think the answer is a complex one because it intersects with personality and neurodivergence.

Depending on who you are and your family situation any form of homework can be a real challenge. Not because of what you are studying but because of how difficult it is to sit down and do anything you aren't passionate about. Certainly anyone with an executive function disability will have that challenge.

Part of the problem is AI datacenters make bad neighbors. Because they are in such a rush to become operational they cut corners.

Instead of AC they use swamp coolers draining aquifers and thus wells of the neighbors.

Instead of using new power plants (AKA using renewables as most new plants do, and all old datacenters did). They either hook up to the grid and jack up everyones electric prices or use generators because they can't be bothered to wait for a grid connection.

All of which is to say while on the grand scale they may be fine. Locally they can be unpleasant to have in your back yard.

If the LLM datacenter builders and operators weren't cutting corners and rushing and doing everything they can to be good neighbors. There would be much less push back.

I say this as someone with 2 huge pre-AI datacenters in my town that have been fine.

I am a native speaker and that is how I read it as well.

I started before the guide was published. I am 40 years in on challenging myself and learning and improving and there remains so much more I have the opportunity to master.

I would change

"Codex starts encrypting prompts, uses ciphertext for inference instead"

to just

"Codex starts encrypting prompts"

That is enough.

Maybe you could say sub agent prompts. The article can say the rest.

I think a better summary is that google gave someone the responsibility to ensure AI was developed and used ethically, and didn't give them the power to execute that responsibility.

Apparently google did not even give them the freedom to come to their own conclusions.

I just skimmed through the paper again and what it says seems to hold up well.

The paper is heritical in that it suggests slowing down, using carefully chosen less biased data, and understanding how it all works.

Basically challenging the AI bitter lesson.

I can see how that would meet with a lot of resistance from people who have gone all in on the bitter lesson.

What?

That post says very clearly at the beginning that hybrids are the preferred approach right now.

No one except the NSA actually wants a non-hybrid.

Which raises the question what is the NSA up to.

Especially since the NSA has a mission statement, a track record, and a billion dollar budget to subvert other peoples cryptography. When they aren't beyond transparent why should anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?

California has another distortion. The property value for tax purposes does not change unless you sell.

In many other states there is the lesser distortion of property valuearions for tax purposes not being allowed to go up faster than a roughly fized rate. Something like 3% a year.

At a practical level I wonder if limiting how much rents can increase from year to year would be a better policy, than not letting rent levels change at all.

Then there is the question of how to encourage home construction so there is sufficient supply where there is demand for people to live.