I’ve never even heard of the DHCP option for this. How widely adopted is it? It’s surprising to hear it called “the right way” when it wouldn’t work for a single-stack IPv6 (or IPv6-mostly, probably) network.

DHCP works over IPv6, but there's also a corresponding RA option, too, if your v6-only network doesn't use DHCP.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8910/ is, I think, the latest version of the standard.

Ah great, thanks for the link! A very clearly-written RFC.

I’ve seen website.com/z/{initiative} before, and it worked quite well.

Could put pressure on data center margins, but not revenue, and not necessarily gross profit.

This point applied to normal NAT as well as CGNAT specifically.

And hole punching gets a lot simpler when you’re behind NAT since you don’t need any kind of rendezvous server to determine port mappings.

In other words, IPv6 does help substantially—the same hole punching techniques are not needed.

Agreed. And throw in some Bayesian thinking too (like the Farmer and the Librarian).

Yes, exactly—the concept of Brand means hardly anything anymore. Certainly due partly to outsourcing like you say, but I think even more generally due to financialization. In a financialized world, brands become purely assets, which can be swiftly created and destroyed on (digital) paper, or packaged and sold to the highest bidder. The brand’s products aren’t the product any longer—it’s the brand itself.

Dynamic DNS is fine for many use-cases.

I suppose, but then everybody else knows your IP too, which nullifies one of the benefits of IPv6.

As far as I understand, there are numerous different kinds of meditation, even within just single traditions. Different kinds with different goals and techniques.

I’d be careful about talking about “the point” of meditation.

MTA-STS really is a drag. Baking in dependencies on a web server and web PKI is a true drag. Such web infrastructure has different operational profiles/modes of resilience that it’s a real impedance mismatch for those who can’t or don’t want to manage a highly-available web server.

But that doesn't work if the indentation carries semantic meaning; you can't change the indentation without changing the meaning. Maybe you can correct syntactically-incorrect spacing (e.g. change 3 spaces to 4 spaces), but not much beyond that.

The Vim I use increases the indent of a code block when I ask it to. Just like it places a closing curly brace at the point where I tell it to. I don't see the fundamental difference between these two things.

But you have to ask it to, and by the right amount for every line/sub-block. If you accidentally get one line wrong, it could be a silent bug. In a language without significant indentation, as long as braces are preserved, once you are done moving code around a single autoformat will fix everything including nested blocks. And if you forget a brace, it's an error instead of a silent bug