That still bites me every now and then after all these years, and continues to introduce discussions as to at what point in backend code the typo should be fixed.

I think you're confusing HTTP with HTML.

Because its the wrong "they" to be making that decision. The working group for HTTP/2 should never be dictating how they feel its use should be restricted. There's plenty of other opportunities for people at the appropriate levels of the chain to make that recommendation. This is a big part of the point of a layered technology.

You're kidding, right? The number 4 billion can be represented in 32 bits, or the same total space as 4 ASCII characters.

Considering that the most commented on article today has 44 comments (not uniqued by user), I'd say that "a lot" is stretching the truth. Besides, if it was really all that, you wouldn't be here trying to talk about it.

I'd like to see that. Bear in mind that the user in question is likely to be an expert in things that you know nothing about, yet has never even been exposed to the idea of a distributed versioning system. Just explaining why even when they go through the process of committing it nobody else can see it is likely to take up quite a bit of your time.

Shame on Google for including a pre-checked checkbox to download Chrome as part of the package. That's download.com level shady.

Good or bad, your products need to stand alone when there's nothing whatsoever tying them together other than the downloader.

There are also a LOT of people who do live in cities. They don't have anything like European-normal broadband value either.

Well, that explains why all of our large cities are so well-connected with gigabit fiber for $50/mo, at least.

Oh, wait, they're not are they? The simple fact that Montana exists shouldn't be used to excuse terrible service and pricing in NYC, Houston, Seattle, or any other major US city.

That'd be similar to trying to privately build the portion of the road system to get to your front door, then driving a subsidized car over them to help defray the costs.

Infrastructure is one of those things that actually does work better when left to the society as a whole. Service providers, on the other hand, work far better privately in competition with one another over government-secured infrastructure.

Yup. We've made that mistake before, too - running government-funded trains over privately held tracks is ludicrous compared to the alternative, yet that pattern the "compromise" we keep making again and again resulting in nothing more than guaranteed payments from taxpayers to some of the largest corporations in the country.

The natural outcome of any limited "free market" given enough time is a monopoly. This is a case where regulation, while not perfect, greatly improves the overall situation.

Playing the "last mile" game is remarkably difficult and expensive. Without regulation there'd be very little preventing Comcast from just buying everyone out and making it up over time with high rates and crappy service.

Run it like modern utilities then - municipal-owned and -maintained fiber backbones, solving the "last mile" problem, with multiple choices for access (or even just multiple choices for billing with matching capacity requirements).

So explain to me why internet access in LA and Manhattan is so bad compared to comparable European cities. Besides, with a comparable density, a larger area should result in better overall efficiencies, not worse.

Any actual evidence of this?

Considering that by far the majority of abductions are done by a family member or well-known acquaintance, you could easily argue the other way too, that being around 20 other kids in a public park is far safer than hanging out in your fenced front yard.