We (reddit) were blocked by AWS on this until 2017 or so. Since then it's mostly been an issue of reworking internal tooling and storage. There are a huge number of places we'd need to futz with to support IPv6, and to be honest we've had basically zero pressure to do so.
When pressure is zero and effort is high, things will go unchanged. I'm sure once pressure exists then some movement will occur. It seems most of the industry is doing everything they can to put off incurring pressure, though.
Thanks to CGNAT we have shifted from a 32-bit to a 48-bit address space (since the port is now part of the address).
Ipv6 really only serves to shed load off CGNAT since we rely on the continued use of v4 addresses since v6 is not interoperable with v4.
But why should Reddit support v6? For the greater good of v4 by reducing pressure of CGNAT for dual homed users. But wait, who are the dual homed users you may ask? Mobile users. And it will only be mobile users since autoconfiguring residental networks to dual home is not going to happen. But Mobile carriers have full control of addressing and TCP/IP configuration of handsets, and so they can easily deploy usable v6.
So the smaller sites shouldn't bother with v6 because they're not an essential part of the Internet with large traffic. But a site like Reddit can reduce enormous pressure for mobile carriers to deliver use of the Internet.
This. 100 companies are responsible for 70% of the worlds emissions. Yes, carbon capture tech is needed, but you're missing the point if you think its the _only_ thing thats needed.
>I cannot expect a 20% increase in salary every couple of years for myself and at the same time blame society's demise on Zuckerberg, politicians, or the greedy, immoral bankers.
You're not paying the company, you're buying a share of its capital. That's not the same thing at all: in exchange, you get a right to get shareholders information and to participate in general assemblies, a right you may sell back later.
Plus, 1 share is enough to be invited to the shareholders meeting to get to ask questions. That's not out of touch.
I very much agree with this. One of the reasons I have so far stayed away from linux kernel development is because I really dont like the idea of having to deal with mailing lists.
First of all, why would you possibly not want to "deal with mailing lists"? But also: You don't have to. For small contributions, there is no need to deal with mailing lists. Linux kernel development has one of the lowest barriers to entry ever. Except for some weird psychological effect apparently that keeps people from doing the trivial things required to contribute.
I find that mailing lists are such a poor medium for discussion that I participate in zero of them today.
Every time a community switches from a mailing list to a forum (like Elm lang recently), they seem to agree with me.
This statement is often met with nerd rage on HN (“why wouldn’t you want to deal with mailing lists?!”) but it’s something you’ll just have to understand or take for granted if you are going to understand what people want from a Github competitor, for example.
> Every time a community switches from a mailing list to a forum (like Elm lang recently), they seem to agree with me.
I don't disagree, but would point out that the mailing list/forum choice is a false dichotomy. Nix recently switched to using Discourse and I've found it pleasant enough to interact solely through its mailing list mode. Presumably there are other projects which provide a similar dual interface.
> I find that mailing lists are such a poor medium for discussion that I participate in zero of them today.
Which doesn't really answer the question why, does it?
> This statement is often met with nerd rage on HN (“why wouldn’t you want to deal with mailing lists?!”) but it’s something you’ll just have to understand
It's impossible to understand it if people don't explain themselves.
> or take for granted if you are going to understand what people want from a Github competitor, for example.
I personally don't care for a Github competitor that has the same terrible usability as Github, so I am not sure I'd be willing to take for granted some unjustified demand for bad usability.
Don't you think that a blockchain that works for anything other than a rather useless currency should be created before suggesting one for such a use? I see comments all the time about how we should use blockchain for this and that, and yet far simpler uses for blockchain haven't yet worked out.
A blockchain is actually a reasonable part of the solution here (just not nessesarily creating a new one). What a blockchain really does is decentralized timestamping. Usually you use it to combine it with a bit of cryptography to process flows of money, but in the same blockchain you can just write "I know hash XXXX", and if later you produce a work with that hash you can prove that it already existed at the point your message was written in the blockchain.
That's not all you would need for verification, but it is a big help.
