In an ideal future of course
797 karma · joined September 3, 2020
In an ideal future of course
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Theory_Practice_of_...
IPv6 is backwards compatible so why would we "finally roll off IPv4"? IPv6 has been "here" in production for over a decade, and has seen slow adoption. I suspect it may be another 8-10 years until IPv6 gets close to a majority, but wouldn't IPv4 still be in-use?
What would force a roll off of IPv4?
Either way, I too would like to know more about how IPv4 space has appreciated/depreciated in the past decade
The headline and this sentence seem contradictory
This has been in work for over a year. This is not suspicious to anyone that's seen the headlines
This is only part of the story. 20% to me is not really meaningful. More importantly, Google wields power to affect the 80%. 20% is a paltry alternative.
What About the company? Did you join for the mission, is the mission something you still support, is the mission something the leadership actually conveys or is it lip service, do you feel you’re in a position to be impactful for that mission.
Sometimes you might get a crappy job at a company with a cool mission (such as SpaceX) but it doesn’t mean you have to leave. Transfer internally!
I might wait on this and read the Github issues for a few months before trying it
We should introduce you to Oracle. This is exactly what they do. They audit their own customers in a very hostile way.
Never underestimate a company in decline, as they grasp for ways to increase revenues and profits for shareholders (or founders)
I want to see if can improve it. There might be a way to have the terminal auto-copy the clippings file
And it looks like the treaty was renegotiated (Australia was shamed) so I’m not sure why you dug this example up
> In 2018, the parties signed a new agreement which gave 80% of the profits to East Timor and 20% to Australia.
I have never heard that word before, but I guess I am one, except for when blockchain has tried a hostile takeover of “crypto”. I’ll fight for that one
I suspect another example of laissez-faire linguists might be the argument over (some) “non-inclusive words”. There were arguments here on HN want the words to move on in their meaning while others want to always connect words to their negative-origins (though some of these connections never actually existed).
I guess I sit in the middle. It depends on the phrase!