The main thing I don't like is type-ability. Even now I type in 192.168.1.14 to connect to my mates computer to play satisfactory. No way in heck am I trying in an ip6!
I wish I had your problems. :D . Problems that are really only a mild inconvenience, and can be solved with a single line in hosts file.
My biggest and possibly only problem preventing me from going IPV6-only is that Github doesn't support it, and there's just too much darn software I need to needs Github. (Yes, I know NAT64 exist - it's just extra complexity for something that is not even my problem in the first place).
I never have to debug why my dhcp server isn't handing out ipv4 addresses or deal with conflicts, but if I did, it'd break mdns too. mdns is an extra moving part to deal with.
By debugging I mean just checking if you have not blocked broadcast packets at the firewall or some similar misconfiguration. I doubt it’s actual bugs when it doesn’t work. On your second point, it’s actually more resilient than DHCP because it works with IPv6 too.
Idk, just checked my LAN-connected Mac's arp tables now and none of the hostnames are there, even after I ping the multicast. Haven't messed with any settings.
Yeah they respond. `ping mdns.mcast.net`, shows responses from ip addresses I recognize on my LAN, `arp -a`, still no hostnames. Tried all the other suggestions online too. Tried on my Mac and Rpi, same network, just a single ethernet LAN.
Router is all default except that I port-forwarded something. Funny enough, it sees the hostnames. I'm guessing it's some problem with both my computers, but no real need to fix this because I memorized the addrs already.
I've had numerous issues with dhcp servers over the years and clients not understanding their responses. Acting like they never have issues is just burying your head in the sand. mDNS often works just fine on most common OSes, if you don't explicitly block them.
> Why not just expect your OS's DNS setup to actually just work?
Maybe use an OS or DNS stack that isn't terrible?
Incredible asking for a not-broken DNS and IP stack is just too far out there when it seems most of the closed source OS platforms seem to manage just fine.
Or let me guess, you've specifically configured it to not "leak" such useful information?
I understand there is a position of "we've always done it this way, so we keep doing it this way"
And.
"we need to move with the times and use new tech!".
But surely there is some happy middle ground that doesn't end up with a entire js runtime in the damn start menu?
I'm a fairly casual dev compared to faang folk, but surely even they realised this was an awful choice?
I read the first two paragraphs, found a bunch of fairly glaring errors, and got put off.
>It has type hints, which are optional, which means they’re not there.
I mean it is there, and it works.
I've also not had an AI make a dict key error in a while, but mostly as I use objects - haven't magic strings in code been bad for a while now?
Also llms are bad at architecture, not things like typing or keys. I'm really struggling with even opus having an absolute atrocious abstraction approach, and has made implementing business logic incredibly difficult. Borderline having to throw out days of work.
>>It has type hints, which are optional, which means they’re not there.
>I mean it is there, and it works.
The argument is that developers will avoid using things if they don't have to, especially if they're not used to it. But this isn't every developer nor an universal truth, just a jab at things.
Google is paying Mozilla to be the default search engine. Google is only paying Mozilla because Firefox has users, regardless if they use the default search engine or not. So, indirectly everyone is the 'product'.
I'm sure if 95% of people did swap to ddg, then google may change their mind.
Also I believe there is the possibility Google also pays Mozilla to offer competition so Chrome isn't considered a monopoly (but maybe Edge has changed that to some extent?)
Wouldn't having a warrant, with the purpose redacted - if that's the concern, be a good balance of "proof of legitimacy" but also keeping some presumably sensitive information private?
I feel even if the models are stagnating, the tooling around them, and the integrations and harnesses they have are getting significantly more capable (if not always 'better' - the recent vscode update really handicapped them for some reason). Things like the new agent from booking.com or whatever, if it could integrate with all hotels, activities, mapping tools, flight system, etc could be hugely powerful.
Assuming we get no better than opus 4.6, they're very capable. Even if they make up nonsense 5% of the time!
I'm not sure this is actually a necessary explanation...but while propellers technically COULD function in space (not a perfect vacuum, right?)...they're basically going to be useless.
He probably misuses "propeller" which is strangely restrictive to "rotative blade propulsion" in English whereas "to propel" is generic in its meaning.
Inflammable made me so angry as a child/teen when I found out. I read it in our encyclopedia set but we didn't have a dictionary, and this was pre-internet.
It was in the context of hydrogen and I could have sworn it was flammable. But here is this encyclopedia telling me it's INflammable. It's... not flammable? Looked it up in the school library.
Thank you, that memory came up from the depths of time. Probably haven't thought about that in 30 years. Funny how we sometimes just didn't know stuff, and couldn't find out back then.
It's just a parsing error. "in-" is also a prefix to create verbs from a name or another verb like inhume, inflame, induce, incite, inject, infiltrate. Inflammable is (inflame)-able and not in-(flammable)
There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.
Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).
There's an inconsistency but no ambiguity, only ignorance. Inflammable only ever means one thing regardless of how ridiculous english might be.
The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.
Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.
The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.
This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(human). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.
> There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.
They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.
reply