The way international roaming works, is similar to a VPN back to your home cellular network on the back end, this all happens transparently to the user. You can verify this whilst traveling if you browse to any site using IP geolocation, it will think you are in your home country.
China has mandated moving to single-stack IPv6 by the end of the decade.
It is not well publicized.
It turns out when you have a government that can tell you "move to IPv6 or we'll have your legs broken and your family thrown in prison" it's a bit easier to get things moving.
Yeah I don't get it. If you need to access IPv4 for legacy reasons then dual stack seems like the solution here. Yes it's a lot of overhead since you have to deal with an IPv4 and IPv6 routing table. AFAIK Windows has had both enabled by default for a long time.
This is actually a very good workaround/transition mechanism, because it lets you go fully IPv6 native, keeping the translation layer for things that absolutely must use IPv4.
And after transition is done, in theory, all you’d do would be turn off the translation box. In practice you’ll have to keep it up until the end of days, but that’s a separate matter.
An average user is not expected to do that. But I understand there are mobile operators out there who have been doing this (instead of NAT) for a while because they don't have IPv4 addresses for every consumer subscription? Wasn't T-Mobile US one of them? (Not living in the US.)
An average user shouldn't be able to find hardware not supporting IPv6, because it shouldn't be allowed to be sold. (And soon, hardware supporting IPv4.) Just like it happened with digital TV standards.
In home network single $70 USD device with 2 daemons running may be clearly too much but for corporate or even office network it's just one more box in addition to dozens of network devices.
Or you could purchase inFuse, point it to a Samba server and literally walk away and be done. They even support connecting to a Jellyfin backend. Paying for commercial software that works out of the box, I know, the horror, I'm literally shaking.
What is the point of this? Why do people care? Do you expect these people to fly commercial like you and me? Hoping for that fateful day when you're sandwiched between Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos on a Ryanair flight, so you can give them your elevator speech with all three of your knees pressed up against your nostrils?
Taylor Swift would be mobbed everywhere in the airport.
Donald was a former president. The Secret Service doesn't let you drive a car after that, let alone fly commercial. Even if they wanted to; they can't. Many former presidents were car fanatics; Bush Jr. lamented to Jay Leno about not being able to drive his truck off private property anymore. 45 was known for sneaking past security detail in his pre-POTUS days to drive his Rolls around NYC. Not to mention Biden and his Corvettes, in his pre-dementia days anyway.
This article is implying wrongdoing for situations can logically cannot exist.
I don't even think that these people need to "justify" their energy use.
It seems that the vast majority of people have an innate need to hate on other groups of people. Not only that, but it seems that when presented with a cross-cutting societal problem (like carbon neutrality), "hating on others" seems to be a substitute for actually doing something intelligent about the problem.
Our society is fundamentally based on energy use, and if we actually collectively cared about carbon-neutrality, we have an immense amount of potential clean energy available to us in the form of solar and nuclear. There's no need to play this silly hate game.
I wouldn't call it hate (or at least not all of it) – I would call it an understandable desire for some measure of fairness.
I'd even say this has little to do with carbon emissions, and much to do with the price of economy tickets for many routes having doubled over the past months, and it'll likely only go up from here in the foreseeable future as we (hopefully) shift to synthetic aviation fuels. Taking a private flight for a very driveable distance, or a connection that has excellent and frequent first-class services available, just isn't the best look right now between sustained high inflation and the common narrative of individualizing the responsibility for carbon emissions.
But yes, I agree that symbolic regulations and prohibitions without a viable alternative won't get us anywhere. Only setting effective regulatory incentives that properly account for the externalities of all forms of energy use will.
> > Do you expect these people to fly commercial like you and me?
No but back in the old days people with money had the justified fear and paranoia to keep quiet in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves and not be expropriated and/or executed.
They now not only don't hide but go out of their way to broadcast whatever opinion they have through the airwaves and especially on climate change the juxtaposition of talking about climate change while pumping into the atmosphere 1000 tons of CO2 per year is symptomatic of a sense of entitlement and not fearing any punishment or repercussion for their actions.
Microsoft has had digital signing with Authenticode certificates for ~20 years now but they didn't give it a fancy name like "notarization" so nobody cares.
"Safely" is strong language that implies software digitally signed by Apple does not contain malware. In my experience, their system is more a sieve than the condom it purports to be.
> keep up the drug treatment so the children of people with drug problems stand a chance
The current "treatment" is to hand out free drug paraphernalia and what has been proposed in cities like SF and Seattle are taxpayer-funded "safe injection sites" fully staffed with nurses. An analogy would be to try and cure a rat problem by sitting on a park bench tossing them pieces of bread. It's irrational and it doesn't work.
The obvious solution with rats is just to kill them, but people aren't rats, so the analogy doesn't work. Safe injection sites are intended to stop people from dying and reduce the spread of communicable diseases, because people are worth trying to save.
The problem being inherently human, you have to come up with solutions that at the very least treat them as such.
In 15 years, I only had a crackhead try to forcibly open my passenger door at a stoplight one time, so clearly this is an overreaction. Maybe he just needed a ride.
