To me the hoops that smoothbrains will jump through to avoid IPv6 and stay on legacy IPv4, especially when hosting, is pathetic. NAT, port forwarding, tunnels, blah blah blah blah.

I have something like ~1.2 trillion times the number of routable addresses that the entire IPv4 space has. Not all are reachable, of course, just the services that need incoming access and they're each on their own isolated DMZ.

Forgot to add: if you enable IPv6, be sure to use the browser extension IPvFoo. It shows a small 4 or 6 in your URI bar to let you know what protocol you're connecting to. Once enabled, you'll see just how much stuff out there actually is IPv6.

Started the move about 18 months ago when I decided to get off my lazy ass. My ISP gives out a /56 prefix, so that lets me run 256 /64 subnets/VLANs in the house, currently there are ~10 in use. Everything get a GUA through SLAAC and I use RAs (Router Advertisements) to give ULAs to everything. Any external facing services get their own VLAN and /64 for the system(s) as needed. Firewall blocks all incoming as they usually do by default and I punch a hole for the external-facing systems. They can't reach back into the network, they only answer the phone. All the systems update DNS dynamically if the prefix or full address ever change.

I have an SSH bastion set up. In all this time there has not been a single SSH attempt from the internet. On IPv4 it was constant background noice.
For those legacy IPv4-only systems on the internet, I set up NAT64. I have an IoT VLAN and IoT 2.4 GHz wireless network that are only IPv4 because a lot of IoT network stacks are junk.

I'm still farting around with it, but man oh man, there's no way I'd go back to IPv4. It was one of the best moves I've done in ages.

... until it affects rich people.

People giving up their thinking abilities is nothing new.

What part of that fiction has any connection with the reality of the 1%?

The social media platforms would rather have it treated like an R rated movie that kids can't get into than simply not run ads or show content for people they aren't explicitly connected to on the platform.

Because most people would opt for that.

Imagine only seeing content from people you follow and who follow you back.

The British traded spice. They didn't use it.

Even if we want oil to be the currency we use to manipulate the world, us using it is a very silly way to go about it because it just makes us susceptible to manipulation.

We're supposed to want OTHER people to be dependent on oil and for US to control it.

Instead it's just us shooting ourselves in the foot constantly. We're supposed to be hoarding oil to drive up prices. Not consuming it.

De Immenso et Innumerabilibus On the Infinite and the Countless By Giordano Bruno Of Nola

is essential reading. It sounds like 1950's sci fi.

The fact this was ever a question is a farce.

We all pay for the gas in our cars to get to work. We pay for the electricity that runs our homes and computers.

Somehow, big tech thinks they can just mooch instead of paying for the batteries for their toys.

Crypto and AI should have launched a great leap forward in clean energy.

All the oligarchs care about is profit, not legacy.

I hate that I can't run MS Office on my cluster of headless Linux servers.

The key problem is that AI isn't being used to make the final draft faster to write, it's being used to replace people to maintain a status quo.

They could hire more journalists to go out and do fact finding and come up with key quotes and key statements that AI could then weave into the final article. Journalists could spend a lot more time building the structure of a story than banging out the final article. This would also free them up to cover the local stories that often get ignored because there just isn't time for them.

If you can go to a community meeting with a tape recorder and a notepad and write down the angle and 10 key points, AI would put together a very compelling article so you can go off to the next one.

Most journalism is supposed to be written in a boring, just the facts manner. Exactly the kind of work suitable for a robot. After a human collects the facts.

COBOL isn't a legacy language. It's domain specific language that is designed for exactly what banks need: high precision math without floating point errors.

Any Comp Sci student should be able to take what they learned and apply that to COBOL.

What actually sets COBOL devs apart is their attention to detail and ability to do math.

Even if backend banking code was written in TypeScript, they would still have to hire the best of the best to work on it. You can't have errors at that level.

If the employees are being paid for every hour they work or have stock to make up the difference, sure, maybe long weeks make sense.

But volunteering free labor so someone else can be rich is pretty foolish.

A junior developer earns $10 an hour because it takes them 10 hours to solve a problem.

A senior developer bills $100 an hour because the same 10-hour project takes one hour. The productivity gain is reflected in higher value, not lower pay.

If AI reduces audit time, that is a measurable productivity gain. But time reduction alone does not define value.

If AI also improves detection, reduces risk, and increases reliability, then the value of the audit may increase even as the hours decrease.

Pricing purely on hours assumes the service is nothing more than labor input. That ignores quality improvements, risk reduction, and reputational impact, which are often the real economic drivers of an audit.

There is room to balance time savings with cost savings. But focusing only on reducing fees risks treating AI as a cost cutter rather than a capability enhancer.

Instead of asking how much cheaper an audit can become, firms should be asking whether improved audit quality expands trust, strengthens legitimacy, and ultimately supports market growth.

Cutting costs can increase margins in the short term. Improving quality and legitimacy is what sustains them.