This feels a lot like the arguing that went on during the transition to Python 3. The Python 2.7 hangers-on were so preoccupied with themselves that they didn't notice that the pool of people interested in having the argument at all was getting smaller and smaller.
Until somebody turned off the lights, that is. It is not much fun arguing with yourself in the dark.
I think that's what needed and needs to be done here. I will agree with the IPv4 advocates on one thing: IPv6 adoption has been slow in part because it doesn't work like IPv4 + kludges. That is the point. Clinging to IPv4 standard practices while you switch is just going to make you miserable.
In 2006, the hesitation to go to IPv6 made sense. Support was spotty. In 2026 it does not. IPv6 support is now more than adequate, and a clean cut will force the stragglers to get their asses in gear in a hurry ("fix your IPv6 support RFN or enjoy nobody using your product"). Change is painful, learning new stuff when you were getting by just fine on the old stuff is painful, I get it. But it will happen whether you like it or not. Why not just get it over with?
I finally made the switch to IPv6 last year, and I wouldn't go back.
The pain of change is real, but mercifully, it doesn't last. Within a year this debate will seem quaint.
As of 2024, literally none of the customers deploying the robots I worked on had ipv6 support on their networks. (We seriously considered switching to ipv6 for our backend controller-to-device network since it would inherently avoid conflicts that way - but none of the hardware devices had ipv6 support yet either, even the ones that were linux boxes underneath; turned out that network namespaces were a better approach to that problem anyway.) These were pretty technophilic areas (within otherwise "traditional" companies - the crossover between "wanting robots" and "being able to afford robots" is a little weird :-) and none of them were even talking about ipv6, to the point that we took "add configuration for ipv6 to the management console in a hurry because a customer wants it" off of our threat-to-schedule list entirely.
I get the feeling it's another 5-10 years before "not getting around to ipv6" will actually be a mistake in that space...
I would say this analogy is not properly when talking about IPv4 to IPv6 transition. Moving from Python 2.7 to 3 is a pure software problem while moving IPv4 to IPv6 is hardware, software, and logistics problem.
There are number of embedded OSes and devices that do not have firewalls nor the ability to disable network ports. Example of these invisible world items are motors, servos, PLCs, and label printers that get configured over IP. These devices do the bare minimum to get the IP stack up and running. These UI tools also need to be updated for allowing configuring an IPv6 address.
I would love to leave IPv4 and move fully to IPv6. Currently it is not cost effect to do so at scale. Companies do not want to spend money on the extra hardware to allow their IPv4 devices to talk IPv6 when they can save that money and keep running IPv4. Nor do they want to spend money on newer hardware. I still have clients running Windows XP Embedded, hopefully air gaped, in the automation world.
*You would be surprised on the number of large corporate IT managers that rather have a completely open label printer connected directly to their network instead of bridged behind a state full firewall running Windows or Linux hosting the main product.
I can't use vlans because my isp only gives me a /64.
So I either need to use ipv6 + kludges or ipv4 + kludges. ipv4 is obviously easier and more reliable at that point, it's a no brainer.
Any sort of hot spot / bridge faces the same problem.
Now RFC 9663 is supposed to help here but guess what? It's only like a year old and barely exists. Not 20 years.
It's not that change is painful, it's the ipv6's original design of a shallow depth network was just... bad. Bolting on RFCs to fix it is taking a long time.
EDIT add: A lot of home users also like Ubiquiti ecosystem for local recording security cameras without a cloud subscription. Another competitor like Reolink with local capability also doesn't support IPv6: https://support.reolink.com/hc/en-us/articles/900000645446-D...
The practical home usage of deploying IPv6 depends on combination of the ISP, the devices you want to use, software stack, etc.
I think the big difference is that python 3 took over rather quickly once it hit a threshold. There was a clearer path for adoption too: as more major packages started supporting python3, adoption accelerated and eventually python2 support was dropped. For IPv6 it's a lot less straightforward. You could cling on to IPv4 with basically 0 practical downsides in the current ecosystem as everything that supports IPv6 also supports IPv4, and IPv6 only networking basically doesn't exist. Even mobile users with only IPv6 adresses get to use IPv4-only services through some translation layer that every ISP has to provide when running IPv6.
That is an unusual luxury, especially mobile providers still using IPv4.
Mobile providers have been the first and most aggressive to migrate to IPv6. Probably helped along by the cost and difficulty of running CGNATs when your network clients are constantly moving around. At least in the UK all the mobile providers are IPv6, and I think a handful are IPv6 only.
I think it's different. Python 3 had a couple slightly annoying quirks that were resolved and once we got past that hurdle conversion was pretty seamless. I've been doing IPv6 in one form or another since, oh, 2010 or thereabouts, and it still remains pretty opaque and a pain in the ass compared to IPv4.
I do use it often, at least for Internet communication (I haven't checked recently to see what my traffic split is between v4/v6, but it's probably on the verge of tilting in favor of v6, if not already there), but I just can't see using it for my internal network anytime soon.
I'm not sure you understand what you're proposing. If you end IPv4 support on your product, all you're doing is banning the users on ISPs that don't have IPv6 support.
The people feeling the pain would not be in any position to fix the problem, and their experience will be that your site is down which leads to support burden and reputation risk for your product. If your support tells me to switch ISPs I'm going to roll my eyes and find another product that works.
There is very little hardware that would actually be ipv6 incompatible.
We're talking network equipment from 15+ years ago, which is also obsolete because it's 1Gbps at 10x the power usage of a 10gbps switch.
Almost every network in existence runs on layers of tunnelling, so you can run arbitrary protocols over fixed hardware. We tunnel IP over Ethernet and then we don't have to replace our switches to use new IP versions or features. Most clouds use VXLAN. Many ISPs actually tunnel your IPv4 traffic over a purely-IPv6-only network, to a specific device whose job is to deal with legacy IPv4. The reverse is also possible if you have a network that can only handle IPv4.
I interpreted it to be about vendor contracts. Suppose you're setting up a new thing and you have a choice of vendors. They're all about the same but one of them supports IPv6. You're more likely to pick that one.
I’ve never had a problem working with CSVs in Excel, but I’ll take your word for it. For text operations, I frequently find myself using Notepad++ anyway.
Parent’s spouse just got really unlucky that their ex put pamphlets in their luggage the same day they got randomly selected to have their luggage searched? And the TSA agent cared so much about pamphlets that they reported it somewhere? And then stopped her?
That’s a lot of really bad luck all in one day, don’t you think? That’s why I’d like a little more information before I blindly believe this isn’t just made up.
With the release of OpenAI’s latest model o3, there is renewed debate about whether Artificial General Intelligence has already been achieved. The standard skeptic’s response to this is that there is no consensus on the definition of AGI. That is true, but misses the point — if AGI is such a momentous milestone, shouldn’t it be obvious when it has been built?
In this essay, we argue that AGI is not a milestone. It does not represent a discontinuity in the properties or impacts of AI systems. If a company declares that it has built AGI, based on whatever definition, it is not an actionable event. It will have no implications for businesses, developers, policymakers, or safety.
I put it in the text field when I made the submission. I assumed it would go in a summary block beneath the link (and it's not made clear what the function of the text field is, apart from being "optional.")
That's a really distorted view of the situation. For a lot of these guys, de-banking was the last straw. Fact is, Biden/Harris overplayed their hand by trying to force feed woke left ideology and DEI mandates on tech CEOs.
As a Canadian, I applaud this. And I hope the government sticks to its guns. This is not just about "big Canadian media", it affects a lot of small outlets who draw from the journalism fund as well.
It was stupid to allow media business models to depend on monopolistic search engines and social media platforms in the first place. This stuff is like hard drugs. For everybody.
And getting off the smack is painful.
The Canadians who care about this are going to find other ways to get their news. And the ones who don't weren't part of the real readership in the first place.
>This isn't benign - setting precedents that linking to something is stealing it is toxic to the whole concept of the internet itself
this is why we need to care. doing theatrics to hide their dirty spending is one thing. but they should at least do their dirt in a way that doesn't have the side effect of breaking how the internet works.
"A Post-It’s easy unstickability is its biggest feature and its downfall.
When you yank a note from the bottom, it curls. That curling is just enough force to lift the note off the paper, the whiteboard, or whatever it’s stuck to."
What do the properties of the adhesive have to do with this? Nothing.
...the adhesive has everything to do with this. If the adhesive was stronger, the curling would not have enough force to lift it off the wall. Post-its only exist because of their weak adhesive...and it's because their adhesive is weak that curling is an issue for them.
edit: by which I mean...if the adhesive was stronger, the post-its could curl and still stick to the wall. Post-its' soft adhesive lets them easily peel from each other, but also lets the minor force of a curled post-it unstick it from the wall.
This is not consistent with my experience in Germany at all. Companies everywhere are looking for educated people. The demand for people with programming skills borders on desperation! Do you have a degree and a pulse? Do you show up for work on time, communicate clearly and keep your promises? Somebody will gladly hire you! You just have to keep at it.
One thing the OP might try is to manage their expectations. My fear is that tech has been so hot for so long that people have forgotten what the normal world feels like.
That world is not horrible. There are many levels between the entry-level and top-paid positions. And there are thousands of companies outside the tech bubble with opportunities suitable for a programmer or developer. I believe that the best opportunities are in the intersection between programming and some other field.
(You are right that they will probably not be found on HN.)
> The demand for people with programming skills borders on desperation! Do you have a degree and a pulse? Do you show up for work on time, communicate clearly and keep your promises? Somebody will gladly hire you! You just have to keep at it.
Translation : "Are you from a top tier institute with several years of experience in FAAANG companies working on EXACTLY the same technologies that are listed in the JD? Great! Now do 5 rounds of leetcode hazing, then system design, then culture fit rounds, and then we'll ghost you"
You obviously don't know the german job market at all. First of all, nobody cares what University you went to because they're more or less all the same. Second, for a normal tech job, it is very uncommon to have more then one, maybe two interviews.
If you just want a job to pay the bills, it's really like that at the moment: You have a pulse and you can write code, you get hired.
Is it that you feel that the posters are doing the trivializing, or society as a whole?
My impression is that nobody treats these layoffs as trivial. Recessions, downturns and the resulting employment uncertainty are cause for anxiety everywhere.
Until somebody turned off the lights, that is. It is not much fun arguing with yourself in the dark.
I think that's what needed and needs to be done here. I will agree with the IPv4 advocates on one thing: IPv6 adoption has been slow in part because it doesn't work like IPv4 + kludges. That is the point. Clinging to IPv4 standard practices while you switch is just going to make you miserable.
In 2006, the hesitation to go to IPv6 made sense. Support was spotty. In 2026 it does not. IPv6 support is now more than adequate, and a clean cut will force the stragglers to get their asses in gear in a hurry ("fix your IPv6 support RFN or enjoy nobody using your product"). Change is painful, learning new stuff when you were getting by just fine on the old stuff is painful, I get it. But it will happen whether you like it or not. Why not just get it over with?
I finally made the switch to IPv6 last year, and I wouldn't go back.
The pain of change is real, but mercifully, it doesn't last. Within a year this debate will seem quaint.
reply