If my firewall failed then the packet won't reach my 192.168.0.1 DMZ server as it will likely never be translated from my real 12.34.56.78 IP address (as the translation would be part of that stateful firewall)
Sure there are exceptions, but you are massively reducing your risk by not having your toaster having a public address by default and having something actively have to translate it to a public address
ipv6 doesn't give most people the business benefits. These are companies that are perfectly happy with on prem rfc1918 addresses and a bit of srcnat, and indeed are likely reducing that space requirement today as more stuff moves into 'the cloud'
Why spend money trying to get ipv6 work when your laptops work fine with a 192.168.x.x range
On the other hand, even something as easy as ULAs would have saved a former employer of mine three+ months of effort in network renumbering (and other directly-related resource management activities (like, suchas, deciding "Is it more trouble to renumber this, or merely turn it off and deal with having a much, much shittier replacement?")) planning after a corporate merger.
It's almost certain you'd have deployed a dual stack ipv4 and ipv6 internal network so you'd have to re-number the ipv4 part anyway, and still probably end up with a mess with ipv6.
Why would you make the internal network dual stack? Now you need to two sets of firewall rules, and devices have two protocols to reach each other making debugging unnecessarily difficult.
Most traditional internal networks are IPv4 only. In larger tech companies where 10.0.0.0/8 isn't enough, internal networks are IPv6 only. Only a tiny number of Internet-facing servers (like your load balancer / reverse proxy for external traffic) should be dual-stack.
> It's almost certain you'd have deployed a dual stack ipv4 and ipv6 internal network...
For the ones that needed Internet access, sure. But, a huge chunk of these machines were machines that never, ever, ever talked outside of the corporate intranet, so they never needed an Internet gateway, and NAT was never an issue. Assigning these boxes an address from a ULA would have worked just fine.
> ...you'd have to re-number the ipv4 part anyway,
As mentioned above, for the machines that did need to talk to the Internet (which required them to have v4 addresses) yeah, sure.
> ...and still probably end up with a mess with ipv6.
I don't see how this follows from what you said.
The way you generate ULA prefixes means that you're highly unlikely to ever have to renumber ULA-using networks that you want to merge. Do you have specific addressing perils or pitfalls in mind?
(Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who has been happily using IPv6 at home for twenty years, and someone who's quite aware that companies like Comcast, T-Mobile, and a bunch of other telecoms run IPv6 on their infrastructure (and often their customer-facing) networks, trouble-free, and have been for many, many years.)
In my jurisdiction it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk, or to serve alcohol to someone if you know they are going to give it to someone under 18.
However if I as a 50 year old, go and buy alcohol from the store, the store has no right to get me to sign a civil contract saying I can't give that win to my 15 year old son, something that's perfectly legal where I live. Nor can they get me to sign a civil contract saying I wont give it to my 3 year old son, something which is not legal in my area.
>he store has no right to get me to sign a civil contract saying I can't give that win to my 15 year old so
Now, I'm not exactly sure what country you are in, but in the US they 100% do have that legal right. Conversely you have the legal right to visit another store that does not enforce that civil contract.
At least for US civil law, you seem to have no clue how it actually works.
"the store has no right to get me to sign a civil contract saying I can't give that win to my 15 year old son"
It doesn't? What prohibits that? Is there a law that requires liquor stores to sell to you if you're 21 years or older?
I'd be curious to know what law or regulation compels a store to sell to you without adding conditions. It might be a bad business practice, but what would actually stop me from requiring customers to sign a document that says a customer won't provide alcohol to an under aged drinker.
> and gas stations don't make you sign an agreement to not burn down buildings before selling you gasoline.
That's historic. Gas stations wouldn't be allowed nowadays, and the legal ways to buy something that dangerous would certainly not be anonymous
To charge my electric car recently on holiday I couldn't just swipe my card at the charger like I can with a self-serve gas station. I had to download some shonky app, sign up, provide address details, and agree to pages of restrictions.
I'm pro-EV and happily daily-drive one, but I think it's fair to conclude that the need for 1-hour to 8-hour+ charging means that the "space needed for parking while energy is being dispensed" is higher fleet-wide for EVs than for ICE vehicles.
We don't think of nor call it "parking" at the gas pump, but we do at a charging station. There's a reason that's the case.
Many people will have a dedicated charging space at home (taking up only epsilon extra space for the charger), but all the Tesla super-charger, Chargepoints, EVGo, ElectrifyAmerica, etc en route chargers will require more parking space per EV than the equivalent petrol station per ICE.
Fast chargers are basically only needed along highways, where they take the place of gas stations. You only need those for long-distance driving, but most driving is short-distance.
On the other hand, a lot of slow/midspeed chargers are basically just regular destination parking spots equipped with a charger. They take up zero additional space. As EVs become more and more common, we'll see an increasing number of parking spots being equipped with chargers. Because this allows EVs to charge where they are parked anyways this means you can essentially get rid of gas stations inside cities - which ends up saving space.
Right now we just happen to be in a bit of an awkward in-between phase. When the majority of cars are EVs, the ecosystem will change to fit them better.
I'm not convinced that those factors would lead to a net increase. Every day I see cars parked at gas stations for 5 minute fillups. Then they go home or to work to normal parking spaces.
EVs eliminate that middle parking spot most of the time. And, tbh, even on road trips, gas cars spend a significant amount of time stopped. They just spend less of that stopped time getting fuel.
if you drive 14,000 miles a year (US average -- twice that of EU average), you need to pull in 4,500 kWh a year.
At a 150kW charger that would be 30 hours of charging, or an average 5 minutes a day.
One charger would thus serve 200 cars in the US, 400 in the EU.
In the UK 2-in-3 cars have private parking space and thus potential for home charging. I expect the US to be a fair higher number as there's more space, but lets stay that figure.
That would make one charger serve 600 cars in the US, 1200 in the EU.
The largest chargers I've seen are half a parking space for two spaces.
Thus to serve 280 million cars you need to provide charging for 100 million, which at 600:1 car:charger ratio would be 160,000 chargers.
There are about 115,000 gas sations in the US. 2 chargers per gas station, using a total of 2.5 parking spaces, would be enough.
Thus moving to 100% EV would save massive amounts of space across the country.
In the city I live EV ownership is at 37%. Very few charge at public charging spots daily. What happens is places that lack the ability gain the ability pretty quick.
You wouldn't be able to get into orbit with a single launch. You could reach escape velocity (assuming you didn't burn up leaving the atmosphere), or a balistic trajectory.
In theory on a perfectly uniform sphere in a vacuum if you stood on a ladder, launched parallel to the ground, and knocked the ladder over on launch, you'd be in a pretty stable orbit with a periapsis of the height of the ladder.
If you didn't knock the ladder, even with a rotating sphere, eventually your orbit would coincide with the ladder again.
(I'm not sure how much frame dragging would cause your orbit to decay and there may be some other issues, like solar pressure)
To get into "stable" orbit (what does stable mean) in the real world you'd need to change your direction once you reached a certain height (typically above the majority of air). A single launch would form an orbit which intersect with your starting point (which even if you started on top of Chimborazo would still have plenty of air resistance)
I think we are just making some different assumptions. TFA also made a whole bunch of unreasonable assumptions, such as maximum time allowed on the swing, a certain height for the beam, no mention of rocket-assist at all...
When you were a kid, did you ever make the swing complete a full revolution? Not while you were sitting on it, pumping it yourself of course. But the headline and proposed question of TFA was simply "How far can you jump from a swing?" So I just made some different assumptions.
Build a swing such that the beam is about 75km off the ground or maybe just a bit more to be safe, with about 75km long suspension tethers for the seat to hang on. Get your rocket-boosted seat going at whatever velocity you need to make a full revolution plus inserting yourself into orbit at around 150km. Once your seat reaches right about the zenith of the swing's circular path, along the line running from you through the beam perpendicular to the tangent of the earth's surface below, you jump. Or "jump", since you'll mostly be upside down and puking into your fantasy tech space suit or whatever you need to get this done.
Since the seat, no longer rocket boosted, will experience a nice amount of drag once it re-enters the atmosphere, you don't even have to worry about colliding with it anymore either.
I don't see what the problem is.
By stable orbit I just mean one that does not suffer atmospheric drag, since you won't have any extra propulsion once you jump. Probably. Who knows. Do whatever you want. Reckoning with other possible sources of orbital decay is too far outside of this nonsense to bother with. :)
