I’ve honestly never understood why someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.
I’ve honestly never understood why someone at Google or Mozilla hasn’t decided to write a JavaScript Standard Library.
How is that not enough? It’s in standard ISO8601 format and can unambiguously be reduced to a UTC timestamp, which is all that matters.
We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that. If you don’t use the bits you are actually wasting them.
Bullshit.
I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I “wasting” it?
All the 128 bits are used in IPv6. ;)
Yes they are all “used” but you don’t need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world. In your own terminology: you are using 4 registers for a 2 register problem. That is much more wasteful in terms of hardware than using 40 bits to represent an ip address and wasting 24 bits.
you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register
You’re not “wasting” them if you just don’t need the extra bits, Are you wasting a 32-bit integer
if your program only ever counts up to 1000000?
Even so when you do start to need them, you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets. Like you can just define it as a.b.c.d.e = 0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.0.a.b.c.d.e
Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64
If you’re worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go.
Anyway, your explanation is a perfect example of “second system effect” at work. You get all caught up in the mistakes of the first system, in casu the lack of addressing bits, and then you go all out to correct those mistakes for your second system, giving it all the bits humanity could ever need before the heat death of the universe, while ignoring the real world implications of your choices. And now you are surprised that nobody wants to use your 128-bit abomination.
IPv6 = second system effect. It’s way too complicated for what was needed and this complexity hinders its adoption. We don’t need 100 ip addresses for every atom on the earth’s surface and we never will.
They should have just added an octet to IPv4 and be done with it.
At 17:00 everyone’s got a beer on their desk and by 18:00 the doors are locked and the lights are out. One Thursday a month the table is used for beer pong after work and we play card games like Exploding Kittens.
I’d rather go home at 17:00 and do all those things with my real friends, or you know, spend some quality time with my partner.
You don’t even have to NAT the fuck out of your network. NAT is usually only needed in one place: where your internal network meets the outside world, and it provides a clean separation between the two as well, which I like.
For most internal networks there really are no advantages to moving to IPv6 other than bragging rights.
The more I think about it, the more I find IPv6 a huge overly complicated mistake. For the issue they wanted to solve, worldwide public IP shortage, they could have just added an octet to IPv4 to multiply the number of available addresses with 256 and called it a day. Not every square cm of the planet needs a public IP.
It’s when you have to set static routes and such.
For example I have a couple of locations tied together with a Wireguard site-to-site VPN, each with several subnets. I had to write wg config files and set static routes with hardcoded subnets and IP addresses. Writing the wg config files and getting it working was already a bit daunting with IPv4, because I was also wrapping my head around wireguard concepts at the same time. It would have been so much worse to debug with IPv6 unreadable subnet names.
Network ACLs and firewall rules are another thing where you have to work with raw IPv6 addresses. For example: let’s say you have a Samba share or proxy server that you only want to be accessible from one specific subnet, you have to use IPv6 addresses. You can’t solve that with DNS names.
Anyway my point is: the idea that you can simply avoid IPv6’s complexity by using DNS names is just wrong.
You do need to know it when you’re working with subnets and routing tables.
Unless you have anything but a flat network structure with everything in one subnet, working with IPV6 is a giant PITA.
It’s a documentary.
~# tar -h
tar: You must specify one of the '-Acdtrux', '--delete' or '--test-label' options
Try 'tar --help' or 'tar --usage' for more information.
***********************************************
WARNING: Self destruct sequence initiated
***********************************************
Yes, the terse Unix version, which needs to be supported for compatibility, and the more readable GNU long option
Depends. Is it GNU tar, BSD tar or some old school Unix tar?
Double hyphen “long options” are a typical GNU thing.
I mean… Young people don’t know things yet… Isn’t that normal?
Depends on the context I guess. If this is a professional IT context in which the 25yo is expected to be proficient enough on a Linux system to edit a text file, not knowing that vim exists is kinda sad.
If there isn’t one
Worse is if there is one but it says: [OPEN] Opened 7 years ago Updated 2 days ago, with a whole bunch of people commenting the equivalent of “me too”, and various things they tried to solve it, but no solution.
For a laugh, view the page source and scroll down.
Third person in the present time is ALWAYS conjugated as stem+t for regular verbs
It gets more complicated in the second person though, with the inversion exception.
javascript was a mistake
That’s a readline thing by the way, so it doesn’t just work in bash but also works with other cli applications that are compiled with readline support, for example
virsh
,psql
,fdisk
, …