If, after you have figured out the right thing to do, you need it to go faster, then it can be quite straight-forward to substitute bits of it with other language implementations that use the logic explored by the python version. Often enough, if you figured out the right thing to do, the python version is fast enough.
mind you, python apps always leak... it's a real issue in production deployments.
Often multi-tasking/multi-threaded paradigms lead people into bad decisions when overall parallelism or application performance is the goal. Python's GiL puts people in the right mind set of starting from independent processes, and having people do their utmoste to minimized interaction points between processes, rather than resoort to multi-tasking/sychronization.
Multi-tasking is about synchronizing access to shared resources. Synchronization is another word for making processes wait. Waiting is bad if you can avoid it.
The dystopian stuff happens when the data is shared willy nilly, and there isn't any particular person in charge of the data: Facebook providing API's that allow open harvesting, Apps on IOS and Android that allow similar harvesting by random 1 or 2 person companies, and/or fronts for foreign entities. It is far more difficult to find hundreds or thousands of such organizations, whack-a-mole style and get them all to fix their behaviour. so to me, Facebook's business model is a problem. Apple and Google's app store policing is critical, but what Google does with data is pretty much the ideal. We are getting services in exchange for giving data to one large corporation that is amenable to pressure (the *one throat to choke* model of risk mitigation.)
Linux is undisputably, the most important kernel in the world. It is no longer in *startup* phase, and now weirdly part of the establishment. It isn't cool for the establishment to be cruel.
> idiots use enterprise NAT and it is a pain in the ass, every single goddamn day.
So is the endless scanning and attacks on exposed IP addresses. So is the endless firewall tuning and maintenance to support a sophisticated internal network that presumes that every IP address will e exposed and services activated without having to get permission
Firstly, a firewall is configured, as completely standard practice, to block incoming connections. Period. There is no additional exposure. IPv6 addresses are not *exposed to the internet* because there is no NAT. People still need to ask permission for things, because the default is to deny. NAT is not the same thing as a firewall. NAT is one way of implementing a firewall, but firewalls without NAT have existed forever and restrict traffic just as fully. An IPv6 corporate lan is not more exposed than an IPv4 one. The kinds of things you are talking about should be dealt with by governance, and dealing with professional security and networking staff. One runs services in particular zones, not under someone's desk. NAT has nothing to do with it. I've seen crappy network admins that will gladly poke NAT holes in the firewalls for whoever asked, and I will be the guy complaining about that, whether it is done via NAT or IPv6. We agree network anarchy is bad. but NAT doesn't prevent or even mitigate it.
Secondly, your argument seems to be that laptops don't need firewalls because they are on the corporate network. 10 minutes from now those same laptops will be at Starbucks, or Best Buy, or stolen and heading kekistan. Laptops need to be configured for a hostile network regardless. NAT doesn't change a thing about that.
>
My work has involved many customers and partners with thousands of hosts in their networks. Internal business networks without NAT is _not_ common, and the enforced policies of service exposure necessary for NAT are always a critical aspect of firewall and router configuration.
yes, I know, I work in an enterprise where idiots use enterprise NAT and it is a pain in the ass, every single goddamn day. NAT has become a religious cult of security people that think it has magic protective powers. That attitude is not based on any reasonable reading of evidence, just become a sort of chant, and it causes major issues for enterprises all day every day, but the issues are invariably technical, so long to explain that management's eyes glaze over. It's sort of death of a thousand cuts, rather than any one thing. NAT is also one of the major reasons deploying in the cloud is often easier... because you're forced to use public addresses out there.
but here's the kicker: That's still totally irrelevant to the discussion of IPv6. You can do NAT over IPv6 just fine. There is no *you can't have NAT* on ipv6 clause. It will work, but it so dumb that sane people generally won't choose that. But if your whole argument is IPv6 is bad for privacy because no NAT, then that's not true. If people want, they can deploy NAT also. It's just mind bogglingly stupid to do that. It's like insisting on driving your car using reins and stirrups. Sure it can be made to work, but why?
I don't think you know what 'expose the ip addresses' means, or what a router does. When ISP's deploy IPv6, they do not apply NAT. The fact that an IPv6 address can access the internet does not mean it is *exposed* if it isn't NATTED. one-way traffic filtering, denying all inbound connections is absolutely standard, and no ipv6 addresses would be any more *exposed* than a natted IPv4. Using IPv6 doesn't mean not having a firewall, it means not translating addresses at the firewall, that's all. All the bog standard filtering still applies.
Any program which runs right is obsolete.