Note that there is no or just very limited plea bargain in most continental Europe.
How about instead of setting the time to 23:59:60, the value 23:59:59 happens twice.
This is how is leap second handled in POSIX systems, with the small different that it is not 23:59:59 but (following) 00:00:00 that happens twice.
> My favorite time scale is POSIX. They define a day as precisely 86400 "seconds". Obviously a POSIX second is not the same as an SI second.
That is not correct. POSIX speaks about SI seconds, it just specifies that 'unix time' is *approximate* number of (SI) seconds from the start of the epoch computed by a formula from date/time. When a leap second happens, the difference of this approximation from the exact number changes by one second and unix time experiences discontinuity (leap backwards).
Well, i hope DST would be abandoned sooner.
There is a better way. Just wait several thousand years and then add one leap hour.
Not really. It is true that before 1 CE (AD) there was 1 BCE (BC), but if you use integer numers for years, then 0 is equivalent to 1 BCE and -1 is equivalent to 2 BCE. See ISO 8601 for conventions for numeric representations of date and time.
EU court (European Court of Justice) resides in fact in Luxembourg.
It is ECHR (European Court of Human Rights, unrelated to EU) that resides in Strasbourg.
Seems like many peering conflicts are related to excessive vertical integration of some providers. Verizon is currently both tier 1 provider and consumer ISP. Suppose it would be split to Verizon1, tier 1 provider, and Verizon 2, tier 2 consumer ISP. Verizon1 would be one of several upstream providers to Verizon2. What wold happen in such case if there is such kind of peering conflict between Verizon1 and Lever3? Verizon2 would immediately change its routing in a way that traffic between Level3 and Verizon2 would go through another upsream provider of Verizon2, which would threaten potential revenues of Verizon1 from Verizon2, therefore Verizon1 would have much stronger incentive to promptly solve the dispute.
Does labor laws apply for CEO position in California? In my country, positions like CEO and chair in board of directors are held outside of labor laws, based on specific mandate contract.
Socialism is an economic system where the state collects taxes to fund things like social programs, that allow people to do things like not work when they're sick without fear of, for example, starving to death.
Well, not really. Classical definition is that socialism is an economic system where means of production (i.e. capital) are publicly owned and managed (e.g. by the state or public cooperatives), while capitalism is an economic system where means of production are privately owned and managed. But press often mixes up socialists (who prefer socialism) and social-democratic parties (who prefer capitalism with socially sensitive regulations) and often uses 'socialists' as a shorthand for 'social-democratic parties'.
> The spread of the virus might have actually occurred
Well, it is generally accepted that the Black death was caused by bacteria (Yersinia pestis), not virus.
Rabbit starvation is unrelated by avitaminosis or missing essential acids (that would be more long term problem). It is caused by acquiring your energy mostly from proteins (i.e. you have to cut both fats and sugars to get it) and accumulation of excessive toxical byproducts of protein catabolism - proteins are not a good energy source for humans.
The inverse-square law only holds for something that radiates in a radial pattern.
More or less everything radiates in a radial pattern (has spherical wavefron) and is subject to the inverse-square law. Even lasers have some divergence. Better focus (by e.g. reflectors) would give you lower angle of divergence and therefore higher initial power density, but that is all.
x-rays are of a longer wavelength than visible light,
Definitely not. X-rays have significantly higher frequency and therefore shorter wavelength (380-740 nm for visible light and 0.01 - 10 nm for x-rays).
It is probably the same. Small wireless ISPs use Linux/PC-based ISP-wide 1:N NATs for years, they just don't call that CGNAT.
Main difference between NAT and CGNAT is that you buy CGNAT from Cisco
> Sad jokes aside - why aren't they implementing NAT64
NAT64 is generally more restrictive for IPv4 than common NAT, while does not have much advantages (if compared to IPv4NAT together with IPv6).
But there are other options like MAP-E, which solves both IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 deployments with advantages (compared to CGNAT) for both users (better control over NAT) and ISPs (just stateless and easily scalable gateways).