You are entirely unaffected by this, because you registered a 2nd-level domain. The problem is for the people who registered 3rd-level domains (john.smith.name). If you're wondering why anyone would do that, it's because it was originally the only option if you wanted a .name domain.

That is exactly the point of the comment you're responding to. "Why do you assume that [OEMs pay much less than retail]?" Well, $200 Windows laptops exist, and $140 of that going to a Windows license is not a credible idea.

It puts a floor on the player's skill. That's not the same as being easier. There are game states that are certainly winnable without hard mode rules but do not allow the player to force a win in hard mode.

I needed directions to a family member's house after she moved. Clicked on her address from the text message, and Google tried to send me to a real estate agent's office instead.

Out of sync with each other, or are they drifting together in lockstep? In the latter case, yes, that's the most likely explanation.

A problem in NP can have a (positive) solution verified in polynomial time. That's it. Requiring more than polynomial time to solve isn't part of the definition, and in fact it's an open question whether any problems in NP require more than polynomial time to solve.

Every single problem in P is in NP. What is believed but unproven is that some problems in NP are not in P.

Hard mode forces most people to play smarter than they usually would. I'm not sure if that's the same as being easier. Hard mode is certainly harder for a skilled player, because that player could play normal mode as if it were hard mode but without having to worry about avoiding hard mode traps like _IGHT or SHA_E--if they encounter such a scenario they can just play known-bad words that check several possible solutions at once (e.g. FIRES for _IGHT to check FIGHT/RIGHT/EIGHT/SIGHT).

I don't see the contradiction, unless you believe that the grandparent comment was written by an LLM.

The inclusion of a timestamp in v7 makes collisions impossible unless the generating systems think that the time is the same down to the millisecond, which makes the temporal distance quite relevant.

Plenty of systems end up generating multiple UUID's in a single millisecond.

The issue with UUIDv7 is that you also have significantly less entropy since you only have a 62 bits (sometimes less, depending on implementation) of "random" data. So while the time aspect of format lowers the chances of collisions, generating two UUIDv7's in the same millisecond (depending on implementation) have a significantly higher chance of collision than two UUIDv4's.

It's still incredibly unlikely, but it's also incredibly unlikely you generate two matching UUIDv4's, but it does happen.

TLDR; It's possible to generate matching UUIDv7's, don't assume otherwise.

I answered this in another HN topic just the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48061098

But essentially, using UUID v7 you actually have less risk of collisions than with UUID v4.

Because of the birthday paradox, if you have N bits of randomness, you can expect a collision approximately after (2^((N/2)-1)) random numbers.

With v4, you have 122 bits of entropy over all time, so will see a collision after 2^60 allocations, approx 1.2 x 10^18.

With v7, you sacrifice 48 bits of entropy to give you 74 bits of entropy every millisecond, so you will see a collision after approximate 2^36 allocations per millisecond, approx 6.8 x 10^10 per millisecond.

You could argue that the risk of a collision is too high per millisecond because it's likely that 68 billion UUIDs are generated every millisecond. And maybe I'd agree. But the counter argument is that with v4 you'd expect a collision after 2^24 milliseconds, or 280 minutes, allocating at the same rate of 68 billion UUIDs per millisecond.

Obviously "all time" is longer than "280 minutes", so v7 is actually statistically less likely to cause collisions than v4, even though it seems counter-intuitive because it has a smaller space devoted to entropy. The key insight is that the time provides bits that are guaranteed to be unique, so only collisions within the same timestamp are significant, and every bit used to provide known-unique values is worth 2 bits of entropy.

Sorry if I worded poorly but you’re definitely less likely to run into a collision with v7, but it’s not impossible, which is what I was trying to point out.

Thanks for a more articulate answer!

A "review of media reports" is not going to capture any incidents that the media didn't report on. That doesn't strike me as likely to capture every incident, or even a majority of incidents.