The other problem with the study is that it does not take income into consideration. This is my largest pet peeve with so many studies, they're basically ignoring a major indicator of quality of life and then make weird conclusions.
But ADHD has been shown to significantly affect income. It’s hard to excel in a high paying career when it’s affecting you strongly. It’s probably pretty hard to normalize for income, then, because it’s a confounding factor.
But that too largely depends on your parents income and wealth as well, ADHD is less of a problem in higher paying job than lower paying job. In fact, for higher paying jobs where you can delegate, AHDH can be an advantage.
If you can brute force your way through all the intermediate years to work your way up to it. I did that. It was brutal. I highly recommend not doing that unless misery is your thing.
it is a review of existing literature. maybe someone will attempt to explore those factors in the future.
from the paper:
"Future research should consider psychosocial and sociodemographic factors to understand how being female,
being of a minoritized race or ethnicity, and having experienced childhood maltreatment may contribute to the risk of mortality in people with ADHD. More diverse and representative samples are needed to improve generalizability and to identify inclusive pathways for intervention. Subgroups of people with ADHD who experience the highest mortality risk should be examined to support informing of initiatives to reduce premature mortality in people with ADHD. Clinically, these findings underscore the importance of long-term, comprehensive care for individuals with ADHD, with particular attention to identifying and addressing modifiable factors that may contribute to excess mortality risk. The association between medication use and lower mortality also highlights the importance of equitable access to evidence-based ADHD assessment and treatment."
How would we know which way that runs? Lower income could expose you to stressors that make ADHD worse, maybe especially in childhood. But ADHD could also easily make it harder to earn money or hold a stable career down too.
A few more RFCs, a few more IP over IP bandaid, a few more extensions, and we will get there. By God IPv6 is a stain in the history of computer science.
IPv6 should have really just worked like NAT/IP over IP on IPv4 hardware and fast path on IPv6 hardware. But instead we got a monster that keeps growing with things like NAT64, 4over6, DS-Lite, MAP-E, and now BGP stopgaps and a growing
> IPv6 should have really just worked like NAT/IP over IP on IPv4 hardware
This literally exists. There's no need for it to be part of the original specification because it's a completely separate concept.
There's nothing wrong with ipv6 other than the general human desire to not change things that "work" and for people who are currently powerful because they own a bunch of ipv4 to resist changes.
> There's nothing wrong with ipv6 other than [long list of human things]
The unfortunate reality is that technology exists to serve us. If humans don't want to use it, it means that your technology is wrong. End of story. It doesn't matter if you (or any of us) think it's elegant and beautifully designed.
Declaring a technology-in-transition dead is truly a take.
It's like declaring SSL/TLS dead in 2012 because some websites were not using it. (Yes, I remember the dark times when even authentication data was transmitted over plain text.)
My first job out of college passed the authentication over SSL/TLS, but the page that *contained* the login form? That was sent in the clear.... Truly dark days.
If your solution is that “if everyone just used IPv6 we wouldn’t have this problem” then it’s not a solution. Standards like USB, Wi-Fi, HDMI, DP, etc. are so successful because they are by out-of-the-box backwards compatible with their predecessors.
You missed the part where DP didn't come with it's own Audio Codec and GPU architecture. Of course, I am exaggerating, but the point is that the problem with IPv6 is not just that it suffers from bad design on merit, it also critically suffers from scope creep. We wanted a larger IP space, instead we got network discovery and globally unique cookies as a bundle deal, with a whole lot of other crap.
You're basically saying "only if people all moved to IPv6 we wouldn't have any problems", which is laughable at best.
But to answer your question, no, supporting dp is not as easy as just slapping a 50 cent port, but it also doesn't make things worst in unrelated areas. That is the point you seem to gloss over with IPv6. It is an ugly over engineered mess.
Yeah, that is the whole point. It was never going to be a clean cut. "Works in my lab" isn't good enough for real world.
The issue isn't that it wasn't planned properly, the issue is that the real world wasn't taken into consideration by people who either worked for the likes of Google who were aching for a globally unique identifier per device or just delusional about how much we can change in real world.
> Yeah, that is the whole point. It was never going to be a clean cut.
As predicted:
We believe that it is not possible to have a "flag-day" form of
transition in which all hosts and routers must change over at
once. The size, complexity, and distributed administration of the
Internet make such a cutover impossible.
Rather, IPng will need to co-exist with IPv4 for some period of
time. There are a number of ways to achieve this co-existence
such as requiring hosts to support two stacks, converting between
protocols, or using backward compatible extensions to IPv4. Each
scheme has its strengths and weaknesses, which have to be weighed.
Furthermore, we note that, in all probability, there will be IPv4
hosts on the Internet effectively forever. IPng must provide
mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng
has become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet.
Creating an IPng was always going to be complicated:
So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand
the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means
[three] things immediately:
You have to change the version number.
You have to add new code to handle the new version.
[…]
You need a coexistence technique so that updated systems,
with the new protocol, can connect to old systems that know
nothing of the new protocol.
Two minutes of thought show that this third requirement has only
two solutions:
(3A) Dual stack, in which the new machines speak both
the old (IPv4) and new (IPng) protocol.
(3B) Translation, in which something translates addresses
between the old and new protocols.
It was never going to be a clean cut, which is why we didn't design it for a clean cut and instead developed a bunch of approaches to transitioning to it that deal with the real-world problems of the transition.
What more do you want from it?
What could they have possibly done differently to make you happy with it?
> people who either worked for the likes of Google who were aching for a globally unique identifier per device
v6 doesn't give you globally unique device identifiers. Devices get IPs from the network in v6, just like they do in v4. You're either thinking of MAC addresses or perhaps things like HIP (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7401). I guess there is Mobile IPv6 which allows you to take your address to another network, but then there's also privacy extensions which prevent your machine from using the same IP for very long, so it's still not a unique identifier for your device.
> The issue isn't that it wasn't planned properly, the issue is that the real world wasn't taken into consideration by people who either worked for the likes of Google who were aching for a globally unique identifier per device or just delusional about how much we can change in real world.
All this complaining and not so much as a single hint or even belief that there's a better solution.
I suppose we could read into the complaint some kind of faith that one does exist, but since nobody has found it yet, the faith is a little uncompelling so far.
> Close to 3 decades and we are barely scraping 50%
That's what I'd regard as a success.
With majority IPv6 in most leading economies, and getting close to or just over 50% worldwide, the tipping point has been reached and IPv6 is now the dominant IP protocol. The future is a long slow slide of the public use of IPv4 into oblivion, just as envisaged in the original IPv6 planning, and IPv4 support will eventually become a compatibility layer tunnelled over all-IPv6 networks, just as IPv6 was originally tunnelled via IPv4. In the longer-term future, once public IPv4 traffic has reduced to only a couple of percent, ISPs will start to turn it off as an irrelevance, leaving v4 as a legacy protocol for LANs and private networks. Expect this sometime in the late 21st century or early 22nd. Some very old IoT devices may stop working, but everyone who cares about any important use will have replaced them long before.
Meanwhile, the Internet will continue to operate seamlessly for everyone else.
There's EVERYTHING wrong with IPv6. It's a recursively bad protocol. From the basic header design (extension headers, wtf) to the "human management" layer ("why should we deploy IPv6 if it actively _breaks_ stuff?").
As an example, try to design a standards-compliant IPv6 network where you can reliably print from an Android phone if your Internet connection goes down and the router withdraws the prefix. It's trivial with IPv4 and _impossible_ with IPv6.
> if your Internet connection goes down and the router withdraws the prefix
My router advertises both the public prefix from my ISP and a ULA prefix for internal LAN connections (essentially the IPv6 equivalent to RFC-1918). This gives me stable local addresses that do not change and work without public internet access.
> My router advertises both the public prefix from my ISP and a ULA prefix for internal LAN connections
You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. If you have a GUA and a ULA, and the printer has both a GUA and a ULA, then your host is going to prefer the GUA when connecting to the printer.
So when a router withdraws a prefix, it's possible for your computer to still have a (stale) GUA while the printer only has a ULA. Whoops, and your printing is broken.
Moreover, some devices will refuse to connect to IPv6 GUA with ULA addresses altogether.
> Yes, your local devices will use the ULA to attempt to connect to Internet destinations if that’s the only v6 address they have. It works fine.
You're half right. The devices will work fine because they won't be using IPv6 at all.
As I said, IPv6 is a recursive WTF.
How do I know that? I made a personal goal to create a dualstack demo network that is fully standards compliant and supports the bare minimum functionality that I would expect from a SOHO network. So far, I keep finding new and exciting breakages on every level.
> This is an option, but ULAs are ranked _below_ IPv4 in address selection preferences. So your network will essentially operate in IPv4 mode
If they don’t have an v4 address then they don’t have that problem.
NPT solves the issue of your devices losing global addresses.
Ideally you wouldn’t need NPT, and you should have an RA for the ULA and an RA for the GUA and then use the ULA locally... but then you end up with a different problem (and why I didn’t do it at home). Doing this means you have little control about which upstream ISP gets chosen. I have two ISPs at home, and router will failover between them; however, even though I have PI IP space, finding a residential ISP that will let me use it is nearly impossible (good luck finding someone there who even knows what BGP is).
So the tradeoff here for me is not letting my devices have a GUA so that my router can control outbound traffic policy completely (like it can with v4), and just NPT it to what I need it to be externally. Works great (but again, if you only have one global prefix you need to deal with, separate RAs for ULA/GUA do work better).
> You're half right. The devices will work fine because they won't be using IPv6 at all.
Not if they don’t have an IPv4 address to begin with!
You can also coax your local DNS resolver to... just not let A records through if the name also has an AAAA record.
Even better than that would be out of the box like magic 464XLAT in home routers / ISPs. As it is 464XLAT is not the nicest thing in the world to configure; however, it does work very well, and does allow for a network to be entirely v6 except at the very edge. Heck, I’d love it if enterprise gear had “like magic” 464XLAT too. Would make a lot of things easier.
> How do I know that? I made a personal goal to create a dualstack demo network that is fully standards compliant and supports the bare minimum functionality that I would expect from a SOHO network. So far, I keep finding new and exciting breakages on every level.
If you really want to accomplish that, completely forget about trying to make dual stack work throughout the network. It’s an exercise in frustration, mostly in needing to duplicate config in v4 and v6, and you will inevitably have them end up out of sync with each other.
464XLAT is good standard here, DNS64 with a NAT64 does also work... for things with names at least.
One of the other comments around here about not providing a “migration plan” does have a lot of truth to it. If, 30 years ago, they envisioned 464XLAT and made it part of the default features a v6 capable router should have, I bet v4 would be long dead (or nearly there) by now.
IPv6-only is not a reasonable assumption for the next 10 years or so. Networks must support IPv4 for the reasonable future in some form, just because of a huge amount of V4-only IoT devices with long expected lifetimes.
But anyway, ULA vs. GUA preference is mostly an academic question. In practice, you can just squat on an unused IPv6 range and avoid the precedence issue.
The deeper problem is that the solution to IPv6 problems appears to be NAT. And we're switching from IPv4 to avoid NAT. And you'll need a stateful firewall for IPv6 anyway (it's a recommendation for SOHO, there's an RFC for it, too lazy to dig it up now).
I'm stubborn, so my house now has its own ASN, a PI block, and a DIA connection to two ISPs. Which is the only NAT-less way to achieve my goal.
> One of the other comments around here about not providing a “migration plan” does have a lot of truth to it. If, 30 years ago, they envisioned 464XLAT and made it part of the default features a v6 capable router should have, I bet v4 would be long dead (or nearly there) by now.
464XLAT (and its evil twin IPv6 RD) were envisioned in the early 2000-s. Along with about 20 various "migration plans". They all missed the point, though. Some people are still missing it.
The key to migration has never been some form of tunneling. The key to migration is making IPv4 and IPv6 coexist side-by-side, in other words, the Happy Eyeballs algorithm. It should have been reified to the TCP level in the late 90-s. So that applications could just do: `connect("somehost.com", 80)` and transparently get either an IPv4 or IPv6 connection, depending on whichever one works better locally. Other operational headaches like the ULA priority would have surfaced much earlier then.
>IPv6-only is not a reasonable assumption for the next 10 years or so. Networks must support IPv4 for the reasonable future in some form, just because of a huge amount of V4-only IoT devices with long expected lifetimes.
I’d say it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. Why? In practice most mobile carriers (notably T-Mobile USA likes to discuss it) are entirely v6 only, with 464XLAT at the edges.
If mobile carriers can do it, and support $billions of devices, it does work, and works well.
If you do have any v4-only IoT trash, put it on its own VLAN (where all the IoT garbage should be no matter what anyway), and let that sole VLAN have v4 addresses.
>But anyway, ULA vs. GUA preference is mostly an academic question. In practice, you can just squat on an unused IPv6 range and avoid the precedence issue.
Totally, but it’s not a good practice to do, even if the risks are generally low. I don’t like to recommend it.
>The deeper problem is that the solution to IPv6 problems appears to be NAT. And we're switching from IPv4 to avoid NAT.
No one should be using NAT with v6 except in extremely limited circumstances. NPT is not NAT, the host portion of the network and, more importantly, the port do not change with NPT. Many of the issues of working around NAT on v4 just don’t exist with NPT. The only “real” limitation with NPT is global address discovery. (Which you’d also have with squatting, and one of the many reasons you shouldn’t do that).
>I'm stubborn, so my house now has its own ASN, a PI block, and a DIA connection to two ISPs. Which is the only NAT-less way to achieve my goal.
I’m very close to doing something similar. There’s an ISP POP that has a few Colo racks about 5 miles away that has clear radio line of sight to my house. I’ve strongly considered using a PtP radio and putting my home internet connection at the POP, just so I can use BGP with my own space to resolve this issue to my satisfaction. The alternative is tunneled connections to where I can use BGP and all of the headaches that go along with that.
>464XLAT (and its evil twin IPv6 RD) were envisioned in the early 2000-s. Along with about 20 various "migration plans". They all missed the point, though. Some people are still missing it.
Doesn’t matter when it was envisioned if it’s not a “just works” tech. There’s a silly amount of minutiae you have to work through to make it work. It should be as simple as enabling it for a VLAN and assigning v4 addresses to the XLAT on a router. Except for rare cases, it’s not the easy. It should be though.
>The key to migration has never been some form of tunneling. The key to migration is making IPv4 and IPv6 coexist side-by-side, in other words, the Happy Eyeballs algorithm. It should have been reified to the TCP level in the late 90-s. So that applications could just do: `connect("somehost.com", 80)` and transparently get either an IPv4 or IPv6 connection, depending on whichever one works better locally. Other operational headaches like the ULA priority would have surfaced much earlier then.
That is effectively how it works, they can coexist together, but it is significantly simpler to only use one. I do agree with you on the ULA priority though. Was a moronic decision to place that below v4, likely again, a lack of imagination on their part.
> I’d say it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. Why? In practice most mobile carriers (notably T-Mobile USA likes to discuss it) are entirely v6 only, with 464XLAT at the edges.
Carriers have their own specific challenges. Like not having enough private or even squattable IPv4 space for the voice circuits.
> If mobile carriers can do it, and support $billions of devices, it does work, and works well.
Mobile devices are actually pretty much the best case for IPv6. The phone environment is standardized and highly controlled. And yet some telecoms still don't provide end-user IPv6, even when the voice circuits use IPv6.
> No one should be using NAT with v6 except in extremely limited circumstances. NPT is not NAT, the host portion of the network and, more importantly, the port do not change with NPT.
This is really a distinction without difference. In practice, SOHO border routers have to be stateful to provide meaningful security for UDP-based protocols like SIP or QUIC.
> That is effectively how it works, they can coexist together, but it is significantly simpler to only use one.
The socket API still doesn't allow this. You have to implement Happy Eyeballs on the app level.
> I do agree with you on the ULA priority though. Was a moronic decision to place that below v4, likely again, a lack of imagination on their part.
If you want to look at politics, this was a compromise. There was a strong faction of "network fundamentalists" in the IETF that had a vision of a transparent end-to-end network with global addressing. So that a lightbulb in China could connect to a toaster in the US at will. So they resisted anything that could promote locally isolated networks.
But most of the IETF had a clue and actual operational experience, so they pushed for things like the ULA and PI space for IPv6. So we got these compromises that don't work well as a result.
Most things IoT are trash, the v4 only special kinds are even bigger pieces of trash.
If you happen to have millions of dollars worth of v4-only IoT devices, that sounds like a you problem. v4 exhaustion has been known for decades, IoT devices that don’t support v6 were ewaste before they even left the factory.
While this is going to be fine for many users, wouldn't this continue our reliance on STUN for UDP hole punching? I'd certainly prefer a world where peer-to-peer networking is less reliant on work-arounds created for the NAT era.
Not necessarily, NPT is stateless as the only thing changing is the network prefix (hence NP). The host portion of the address doesn’t change and the ports stay the same on both sides of the translation.
There would still need to be some form of global address discovery, but that’s a much simpler problem to solve in nearly all scenarios.
You’d still have the issue of whether the firewalls in between you and the remote end allow that connection through in the first place though.
That RFC does look like a nice improvement! Until then, since both devices have a ULA address, wouldn't simply deleting the printer from your phone/computer and re-adding it resolve the issue? Doing it when your public internet is down would probably even be best to ensure you're getting the ULA instead of GUA, thereby avoiding this issue entirely in the future.
(Admittedly I haven't had a printer for over a decade and I have never printed from a phone, so maybe I am missing something.)
In practice, nobody uses IPv6 for printers, so it'll work just fine over IPv4.
I used a printer as an example of a local device, it can be any other device: a smart lightbulb, a TV you're casting to, a SIP phone, etc. And I used Android as an example of a device where you can't easily change the source address selection preference.
What is more shocking is that this problem has been known for three decades, yet somehow nobody cared enough to fix it. And it's far from the only issue.
The extension headers are fine, because they frequently are not needed, so the fact that they are optional allows the IPv6 header to be significantly simpler than the IPv4 header, which has some seldom used fields which are always present.
No, they are not fine. Their design means that the router needs to know all possible extension headers to just be able to route the packets. Oh, and you also have to do offset-chasing in the hardware fastpath.
As a consequence, IPv6 with extension headers are just dropped by routers in the public Internet.
With one exception, extension headers are not examined or processed
by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches
the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast)
identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
That seems like the opposite of needing to know all possible extension headers in order to route a packet.
The issue is that the extension headers can be used for nefarious purposes, such as hop-by-hop routing. So your fast hardware-based border routers might be EH-agnostic and transmit packets to your core network. And then a helpful Linux box that implements all of IPv6 in software would reflect the traffic right past your firewall.
Implementing the EHs in hardware is expensive, as you need to do conditional checks. So routers just drop them.
On the other hand, if Android supported IA_NA we would probably be seeing ISPs in the wild handing out /112s and going "But it's 2^16 IPs! We're being so generous, what could you possibly have to complain about?", so it's quite possible that adding support would be to the detriment of all Internet users.
Android does now support IA_PD, so the people who need to track IP use via DHCPv6 requests should now be happy. (We'll just put aside the question of whether doing that even makes sense in a world where devices can be told to use any IP.)
When v6 was “invented” I believe they thought “everyone” would have PI addresses, as was (relatively) common 30 years ago.
If everyone has their own PI space, and used BGP with their ISPs this would also be “zero setup” with v6 as that’s the entire point of BGP and PI addresses.
It was a definite failure of imagination that they did not think of how this would work if you don’t control your own IP space.
If you have ISPs you can peer with over BGP and your own PI IP space this does “just work” as you’d expect. The same way it “just works” with v4 in a NATless world.
A lot of the things that “just work” in v4 are really just NAT sweeping the rough edges under the rug. The same problems exist in v4, but don’t get seen in practice as local / global addresses are effectively always different on your network (unless you’re lucky enough to be a legacy allocation that has an /8 of v4 I suppose).
If you enforce that same “separation” in v6 (with NPT, or NAT) surprise the “problems” also go away, like they do in v4.
Not really. Believe it or not, but the initial plan for IPv6 was to NOT have the PI blocks at all. Everyone was supposed to use PA (Provider Aggregated) blocks.
The needs for dual-homing and failover were completely glossed over in the IPv6 design, and the IETF has not acknowledged these needs even to this day.
"PA" or "PI" is an administrative distinction and technically has nothing to do with BGP or multi-homing. You can still announce PA blocks under your own ASN. I do that today, actually.
It's the same with IPv4, by the way. An ISP can assign you a block from their allocation, you can still announce it with your own ASN as long as it doesn't violate the issuing provider's policy, you're still a customer, etc.
It does have the effect of requiring you to follow the upstream ISP's numbering system. So if they switch the prefix, you have to follow.
And it's more of the "it's the thought that counts" thing. Multihoming was considered to be something rather exotic and mostly a requirement for ISPs or large companies.
Yes, but that rarely happens with IPv6. ISP / LIRs get huge allocations.
The real problem is BGP isn't available from most home or "small business" internet connections. You can't multihome even if you want to. You need a DIA / enterprise plan, or you need to use tunneling (which is what I do, from several BGP capable VPSes, in a configuration that is too complex for the typical SMB.)
I do admit this is a challenge. The only reason it's "easy" with IPv4 is because of NAT. With IPv6 you'll need prefix translation. I've found someone with a failover solution for UniFi but in general you are correct, it's a pain: https://github.com/mattackerman808/ipv6-wan-failover
You can do it with prefix translation. Unfortunately, it's one of the many things where v6 almost provides a nice solution, but reality is terrible. If you just advertise both prefixes, your clients are going to do cool stuff like use an address from one router and send packets to the other router.
Possibly. It's complicated. It's not uncommon for Company A to produce a design based on Company B's proprietary R&D. Just because Samsung is making those displays for Apple doesn't mean that Apple didn't do major parts of the R&D. Nor does it mean that Samsung can make the same displays for Samsung, or for their other customers.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean we can deny ground truth. Apple did not invent folded screens by any stretch of the imagination, and is the latest one to the party, even for Apples standard of "freshness" it is late.
Their ambitions are to sell products that work. I’m a customer because I want the newest stuff that has the kinks worked out.
Idk if you’ve ever worked on… anything… but the last 10% of the apparent work is the hardest. It’s incredibly ambitious to take an idea from 90% to 100%.
Well, I didn't mention Gas because US is not selling Gas to EU, but they do in fact sell Oil to EU while buying Oil from Russia. It might not be the exact same oil and cycled through the reserves, but same thing.
Logic says google bots do not come disguised, but as google agents.
Or is there other information?
Now there is probably also AI agent spam from google, but not at this level I believe. Also I am not fully clear what they count as spam, I doubt they would include google in this list, so do they include yandex bots here, if they come officially?
There's also the very well known inverse phenomenon of absolutely non-google people trying to disguise their crawler as a googlebot useragent, which has been a thing since at least... 15 years now?
I am unsure what you're trying to say. But it seems like you don't understand what Bot means in general and how is it specifically defined for the metric provided in that page.
From that pages point of view, a Google bot, Yandex bot, or your uncle Tom's AI agent spam is the same, a bot.
If official yandex bots ain't included in this data here - then it means spam/scam bots come indeed from yandex servers. As they stopped working, when the yandex data center was hit.
What an interesting way to phrase things when the US is responsible for much more suffering and unrest outside of it's own borders. Including the current situation in Russia, come to think of it.
> African countries are like concentration camps? Incredibly racist attitude.
You took two separate points and twisted them to suit your bias.
We are taking immigrants from Latin American countries and deporting them not to their home countries, but to African nations as a form of punishment, allowing them to be detained by a third party government in a country where they don't speak the language and don't have access to a way back to their home nation. If we're going to deport them it should be back to their home country, not an entirely different continent.
It's really heartbreaking to see how incredibly cruel people can be online, I hope you're not like this in person.
Edit: I meant to put the ACLU link rather than the Marshall one, but keeping both
> Great links, Marshall even says how only the most far-leftists say concentration camp instead of the correct term detention center.
Can we not agree that people should not be detained in conditions in which they are being allowed to have an infected tooth develop sepsis leading to death? Is it so much of a stretch to say that if we're going to hold someone in custody, we have a responsibility to ensure that they're not being left in inhumane conditions. When did advocating humane conditions become leftist? How is it that we have such a massive number of incarcerated Americans in prisons but it's only the incarcerated immigrants that are dying at at a rate of one every six days?
> I have a simple trick to avoid being sent to a "concentration camp", I don't illegally go to the US or any otheir country.
Let's conveniently ignore the US citizens ICE rounded up and put into custody because they were the wrong color. Or the increasing number of legal immigrants who are rounded up based on their location and appearance to be sorted out later once an advocate is able to bring their documentation.
Why are you willing to be so cruel? How would you feel if this happened to someone you cared about?
>How is it that we have such a massive number of incarcerated Americans in prisons but it's only the incarcerated immigrants that are dying at at a rate of one every six days?
If you checked the numbers you would notice US prisons and jails have a lot higher mortality than ICE detention, state prison being the most dangerous with about 4x more deaths than ICE.
>Let's conveniently ignore the US citizens ICE rounded
No system is perfect and idiot agents should be fired.
>How would you feel if this happened to someone you cared about?
I've had friends kicked out of the US by ICE and we mostly laugh about it, they know if you do the crime can't really cry once you're busted. Personally I'm banned for life because I'm a convicted criminal, smoked weed and did some LSD when young.
I'm only going to bother responding to what is either an obvious bad faith argument/troll or someone who is completely deluded for the benefit of others who may have some amount of rationality and empathy left in them, as I'm sure you're going to have a "Well actually" retort for every single point I make while ignoring the increasing swell of inhumanity that they all lead to. Don't expect a followup as this is not really for you.
> You wanted silent executions where they botch up using failed lethal injections?
Executions today and throughout the existence of the internet have been "silent". We stopped making executions public events because we realized it was barbaric and celebrated violence while also being a show of force against the citizens of a nation. Public executions are something most people associate with dictatorships.
> Why this sudden sympathy for the terrorist who mercilessly murdered unarmed children and women.
I'm not advocating for sympathy for someone who committed a crime, keep your arguments on point please. I'm advocating for not making the execution of a person a public viewing event put on by the government. Two women were injured in the Fort Hood shooting, however one of the victims was pregnant, so I guess you could still try to argue "women and children", though that seems to imply the male victims were somehow worth less?
> What is this dilution of prioritising profit over human life nonsense?
If I become severely injured or ill my ability to access care to prolong my life or decrease my suffering is directly correlated with my wealth. There are plenty of countries, "third world" and otherwise, where this is simply not the case. If I lived a few hours north of where I am now I'd have universal healthcare. I had a friend who died at 22 of skin cancer because he was afraid of seeking treatment, because he knew that if it turned out to be terminal he would be leaving his family with generational debt. In the last country I visited he could have just gone to the hospital and received treatment. They viewed access to healthcare as a human right, putting the needs of people over profit. Is that country perfect, obviously not, but they've at least got that going for them.
> We kidnapped him because maduro is a dictator who profited himself and his cronies over his people and rigged the elections
Why are we the world police? Should we go "liberate" every country with an autocratic dictator? Why are we more worried about the affairs of a foreign nation and its leader than resolving the issues we have at home. The answer is oil.
> US has been savior of Jews against nazis and bombed the fascist japan regimes there by saving the world from communists who would've plunged the world to middle ages.
This statement alone is worthy of a page of retort on its own, but it's irrelevant to the point I was making, that today things are not going well here, regardless of what good we may or may not have done in the past. The America of today is not the America of yesteryear.
This phrase is so annoying. It's one millimeter up from just doing marvel movie quotes instead of typing your actual thoughts like a real live adult human.
If the Microsoft purchase of Github wasn't a good indicator of the start of the end, this is it, I know a lot of people like to have "control" over things, but I have found so many fixes for software I use in un-merged PRs. Github moving towards closer and a closer system is good opp for alternatives to take some of that space. Nice.
This "Microsoft ruined GitHub" doom talk is getting tiresome. That was 8 years ago.
One of the big changes right after that was offering free private repositories, most people complaining today would've probably not even used GitHub if there were only free public repositories.
While that was a nice change, don't kid yourself: Github was the dominant platform before that for a reason, and the alternatives were either behind in features or very new. I'm doubtful that if they still had the old pricing structure for private repos that it'd change anything about their success.
Also, the old structure reflected their focus/encouragement of open source, something this change does even more to move away from.
At the same time, I don't view this as a huge issue, though it does make me wish it was easier to get activity details on forks so even if a repo is locked down it would let you see where PRs "went".
> Also, the old structure reflected their focus/encouragement of open source, something this change does even more to move away from.
Open source projects are the main driver of this change, every popular open source projects gets a lot of drive by AI pull requests that waste maintainers’ time. Projects come up with their own way of blocking people (https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/blob/main/.github/VOU...) but having this be a GitHub feature is a much easier option for most.
reply