> The Vietnam War ended, astronaut Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal, communism collapsed and the world entered the computer age.
Americans tend to overestimate the importance of their events to describe the world changing.
Maybe it's time to stop cultivating this hatred. Otherwise, you’ll have to keep hating other nations. It's a road to hatred hell - many countries and nations in Europe had conflicts.
Separate a regime from a nation. I don't know any Russian (I’m Russian in Spain) who would have any negativity to the Poles. Maybe it would be better to stop the hatred from another side as well.
Nationalistic flamewar is not welcome here. No more of this, please. I'm sure you have good reasons for feeling the way you do, but that doesn't make it ok to post destructively to this forum.
> Also, if you read the history of your country (and nation), you’ll see that one of your neighbors was occupying your country for a much, much longer time - maybe you’ll find another target to hate ;)
That is the thing you do not get - when you read about it in history books, it is not the same as experience something yourself. When it is your life that is being damaged, it hurts... and hurt people are not objective. People generalize. Read your own comment - you read one unpleasant comment from one guy on the internet and you are already generalizing it to Czechs you met in Prague. How would you react if someone did this[1] to someone you know?
I did not say that I hate you. I was just trying to explain to you why many people might. They do not want to hate (it is not pleasant). They did not choose to "cultivate hatred" as you say. They were hurt and hatred is natural reaction to trauma. Instead of blaming them, the victims, blame those who hurt them.
In addition to not posting flamewar comments as I asked you upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481406), please do not cross into personal attack as you did here. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
I got carried away. I apologize to both you and EugeneOZ. However, could you please point out what personal attack you mean, @dang? I am asking genuinely to learn. I see now that I did not argue in a constructive way and I am sorry about it but I honestly did not intend to personally attack EugeneOZ. I was not saying that I hate him or anything like that, he is clearly not responsible for what is going on in Ukraine. I was trying to re-frame what he perceives as hatred and explain it as people being hurt, something they do not necesarily control.
EugeneOZ, to put it absolutely clearly, I know you bear no personal responsibility, you do not deserve hatred, and if you understood it that way, there was misunderstanding caused by me and I sincerely apologize.
Please do not take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Also, please do not cross into personal attack.
There is nothing worse than library or language maintainers who do not understand that "pure" error messages are absolute hell. If 99.99 % of the time a user should simply write x instead of y, the message should absolutely state that if possible.
I don't understand why was the next version of IP not just identical to IPv4 but with more bits in address space? Were they trying to do too many things at once in the 90's?
I don't think it not being that harms it as much as people think. It has to require updates for everything either way, people by and large don't care about "oh but it's only a small total breakage, going to jump on that then". On the other hand, yes, there certainly was some "we break everything anyways, so lets 'improve' things", combined with those improvements being designed at the wrong time, with assumptions that not always turned out to match reality. (E.g. a bunch of pieces that were added to IPv6 kind of assumed that routers would stay as they were, with routing done on CPUs, in software. Which they obviously didn't, and specialized hardware works on entirely different constraints)
It was fixing (or trying to) issues with the v4 spec that were now very apparent.
For example, ipv4 technically has a link-local address space but barely anything will use it and even less will successfully. Many other 80/90s protocols did much better at that (IPX being an example) as well as having distributed name and service locators and such.
IPv6 local networks of IoT devices or whatever can pretty much automagically start communicating with zero configuration to anything else locally. No DHCP or whatever required.
The world didn't stand still between v4 and v6, it'd be weird if the protocol did.
There still hasn't been a coherent answer. The best approximation is that a lot of networking researchers saw their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bikeshed the lowest layer of the public network stack, and couldn't resist the urge.
All of this could have been avoided by making NAT64 part of the original IPv6 standard (instead of wasting a decade pretending like it wasn't necessary) and making it a mandatory service provided by every IPv6 router, unless all downstream routers already provide the service. This would have forced an invisible-to-endpoints IPv6 transition, starting at the backbone ("no default route" region). Carriers would have very quickly pushed the NAT requirement downstream (away from the default-free region) in order to offload the burden it creates. Each step of the transition would have been a strictly local change between two peers, one of which is paying the other, and can therefore can be incentivized ("hey, if you run NAT64 for your downstreams so we don't have to, we will charge you less per month"). No global coordination, and the local coordination is always across a commercial relationship where a carrot can be dangled.
But instead we got what is basically a flag day, so "the transition" will never ever happen. We'll still be talking about it in twenty more years.
IPv6 is pretty much IPv4 with more bits - at least compared to the alternative of the time that was CLNP/DECNet (which had 20byte addresses and is quite different).
And the very slow transition hasn't really anything to do with the standard itself, but with the transition technologies (NAT64 like you mentioned).
It would have happened with any of the proposed alternatives. Hindsight and all..
NAT itself wasn't even a thing yet (not an RFC anyway) when IPv6 was being developed.
Flag days had worked in the past too, so why not again?
At the end of the day, if a university gives out grades, there has to be some sort of objective way of handing out a grade. What I have seen for the good courses is it is a mixture of exams, projects, and homework.
Some students are very good at taking exams, others, not so much. This can be due to a learning disability, stress over test taking, etc (or it could even be that person just is having a bad day!). Having homework and projects allows for students to have a different way of showing that they understand the coursework, and are able to apply the material.
It also gives the professor and TAs insight into the student. Why is a student doing so well on homeworks, and not the exam or project?
Some courses have it where if youre final grade on the exam is an A, you get an A (since it is a comphrensive knowledge base test of what you are expected to know of the material). But, let's say you don't do as well on the exam, you can have the homeworks average out the exam grade. Or you have a project, that can help equalize out the grades, because the application of the knowledge is important as well.
>Brief Course Description: More abstract than calculus, this course aims to develop basic algebraic tools for work with problems involving many variables. Starting from systems of linear equations and vectors in 2-space and 3-space, this course develops ideas about length, angles and resolving a general vector into useful components, identifying features of linear systems or processes in order to choose a basis that is well-adapted to studying a particular phenomenon and move between different points of view to reveal the essential underlying structure. Companion course to 201 (Multivariable Calculus). Discusses matrices and linear transformations, linear independence and dimension, bases and coordinates, determinants, orthogonal projection, least squares, eigenvalues and their applications to quadratic forms and dynamical systems.
Americans tend to overestimate the importance of their events to describe the world changing.