Adults can and do become addicted to gambling (and drugs, etc.) and ruin the lives of themselves and those around them.

Recognizing this fact isn't treating them like children, it's treating them like the adults they are.

There are a lot of non-white citizens of Canada (and Germany) whereas the comment you’re replying to is about non-citizens. Also Canada hasn’t had conscription for a long time as far as I know, the friends you refer to were volunteers.

That’s essentially what the commenter is proposing when talking about banning birth control. This would be equivalent to compelling women to reproduce (or forego sexual relations, which in reality most people won’t do).

There is an actual answer to this, don’t listen to the random people replying saying stuff like “because the CDU is in power” or whatever.

The actual answer is because the constitutional instrument that allows conscription (Artikel 12a Grundgesetz) is explicitly limited to men. Therefore women are not subject to conscription in Germany, unless the constitution is changed.

Perhaps if the constitution were written today instead of in 1949 it would include women too.

You are misinformed and it is pretty much because of the CDU/CSU. There was a chance to change it with the help of the CDU just after the election but before the last government got dissolved the CDU objected...

Can you give a link to what you’re talking about?

Why would China agree to that? It's an insane proposition for them. "You have to put bases in a country where you have no strategic reason to do so, and in addition, you agree that if that country is attacked then you have to nuke the US, guaranteeing your own destruction."

They want a base in the Middle East and they have many reasons to be there, oil being one of them, they actually get it from there. As Trump says (today), the US does not have any need for their oil, so in that sense China has more reason to be there.

Mutually Assured Destruction has worked for 75 years, China is aggressively expanding their stockpiles. Would the US or Israel risk a war with China over Iran if they get the assurances from the Chinese they will keep Iran on a tight leash?

> Why would China agree to that?

Ultimately the aim to displace the US as the world hegemon. Having bases across the world is what hegemons do.

Half-price oil?

So Iran would sell its main natural resource at half-price forever to pay for China to keep bases on its territory? That also doesn’t seem plausible.

Realistically there is no amount that Iran would be willing to pay and that China would be willing to accept for China to essentially agree to be responsible for the defense of Iran. It’s a non-starter.

It's My Lai, not Mai Lai FYI.

In my experience people use “victimless” to mean “the victims are people I lack sympathy for”.

That’s like saying the US is contiguous with Japan, you just have to cross through parts of the Pacific Ocean to get there. Contiguous precisely means you don’t have to cross anything else to get there, it is connected.

You can also just browse LinkedIn with a browser that doesn’t have extensions installed, if privacy is that important to you.

Like everyone else on this thread, I’m not condoning it or saying it’s a good thing, but this post is an exaggeration.

yeah yeah or we can do it from a contained virtual environment over VPN etc

it is a different angle of looking at this issue, and kind of shifts responsibility from their shitty practices over to us users

slippery slope approach, as we can see everywhere, this leads to more and more of such

I don't know I just started mocking everything and anything in there, its wall of shite and AI slop predominantly anyways, so why bother

What would have been your solution to needing more bits? More information is always going to be harder to remember.

Adding two extra bits to each octet, making each octet range from a still memorable 0-1023 rather than 0-255, would result in an addressing scheme 256x larger than all of IPv4 combined. The entire internet works fine even when IPv4 was nominally exhausted. NAT and CGNAT are not sins, they're not crimes, and there's no rational reason to be as disgusted with them as IPv6 fans are. Even then, IPv4 exhaustion wasn't really a true technical problem in the first place, it was an allocation problem. There are huge /8 blocks of public IPv4 space that remain almost entirely unused to this day.

The reason I'm an IPv4 advocate in the IPv4/IPv6 war is that the problem was "we're out of address", not "your thermostat should be natively routable from every single smartphone on the planet by default and inbound firewalls should become everyone's responsibility to configure for every device they own".

CGNAT is a feature, not a bug. Blending in with the crowd with a dynamic WAN IP is a helpful boost to privacy, even if not a one-stop solution. IPv6 giving everyone a globally unique, stable address by default is a regression in everyone's default privacy, and effectively a death sentence for the privacy of non-technical users who aren't capable of configuring privacy extensions. It's a wet dream for shady data brokers, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and script kiddies alike - all adversaries / attackers in threat modelling scenarios.

IPv6 adds configuration surface I don't want. Privacy extensions, temporary addresses, RA flags, NDP, DHCPv6 vs SLAAC — these are problems I don't have with IPv4. More features means more opportunities to footgun with misconfigurations, being forced to waste my time learning and understanding the nuances of each (in again, what amounts to system I want nothing to do with).

"Reaching your own stuff" is already a solved problem, too. Tailscale/Headscale gives you authenticated, encrypted, NAT-traversing connectivity. It's better than being globally routable. It's also opt-in for anyone who wants it, and not forced on anyone, unlike the IPv6 transition.

Saying that IPv4 is ok because we have NAT and CGNAT is like saying that spam is not a problem because we have spam filters everywhere.

I don't have your problems with ipv6, and I'm actively using it.

I don't have to rely on extra commercial entities to be able to reach my network.

I did have a problem with hosting my own shit because my ISP by default does cgnat. That cost me an hour of my life to convince a party to give what used to be normal, end to end connectivity.

The tailscale client and the headscale server are both open source, you don't need to rely on commercial entities.

yes you do, the control plane is closed. Only reverse engineered by the headscale project. The control plane is necessary for the peers to find each other. If you need to rely on such a crucial part being reverse-engineered, than yes, I think it's fair to say you are ultimately relying on commercial entities.

Headscale is open source and it already works. You don't need to rely on anyone to use it, or even to improve it.

> NAT and CGNAT are not sins

Highly disagree. Middleboxes are a huge problem on global scale and have frozen any innovation below application layer. TCP and UDP even that they are on software not hardware layer cannot be updated or changed, see MPTCP efforts or QUIC giving up and building on top of UDP.

If this is so much privacy problem, IPv6 is there for many years reaching 50%+ deployments in some countries, I bet there should be concrete examples of such breaches and papers written.

> Reaching your own stuff is already a solved problem, too. Tailscale/Headscale

No address to receive communication - no problem install an app that would proxy it through someone who has the address. Tailscale/Headscale is great, using it daily, but they are not solution to the huge already build global network created to connect devices not connecting devices because lack of digits. Global is key here.

Wouldn't easy and accessible self-hosting be a major privacy win if that's your primary concern? Sounds much more private to run a Minecraft and Mumble server on an old laptop in a friend group than paying a commercial entity like a hosting provider to know about it and have a back door.

Easy and accessible self hosting isn't the primary concern.

It's much more private and secure to run that Minecraft or Mumble server on an encrypted overlay network like via headscale + tailscale rather than exposing both services directly to the entire planet.

But again, the primary concern was only ever address space.

What I tried to express was privacy being the primary concern. The easy and accessible self-hosting on old hardware would be the uses of a home network beyond superficialities like consumption and commerce. Privacy wise headscale as a solution is still not quite there, because it either necessitates an additional third party to host the headscale server and know about all my friends, or jank like dynDNS.

The additional security gained by getting everyone involved to set up and configure separate VPNs for different community utilities is not worth it.

I disagree wrt NAT. It creates huge problems for many p2p applications.

I wouldn't call port forwarding "huge problems". It's only one minor router setting and if you don't want to deal with it, there's the abomination called upnp.

> I wouldn't call port forwarding "huge problems".

Port forwarding has massive problems if you're running applications expecting certain ports and need multiple hosts to have public access to those ports.

>"Reaching your own stuff" is already a solved problem, too. Tailscale/Headscale

IPv6 predates those by decades.