191–200 of 227 posts
https://www.internethalloffame.org/tag/2012/
Click on a profile, scroll to the bottom and click the Wired link
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so much a joke as a smear. Gore was attacked for claiming to be the inventor of the Internet, but he never said that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_techno...
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took it as a... joke... Can we post jokes?? Everyone knows Al Gore didn't sit around in an SV garage inventing the internet.
To me it counts as a trope and the guidelines ask as to avoid posting Internet tropes, for the very reason that they’re more likely to elicit a groan than a laugh. We’d love to see good jokes on HN, but they’re a precious rarity. (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289 .) I guess this one stings because I hate that HN is a place where our idea of a joke is mocking the work of a politician who really is cred…
Anyone know what he actually did at Google? Was it an active role, did he publish anything interesting? Or was it more of an Institute for Advanced Study kind of position?
He was hired to go to meetings and state “I’m vint cerf, I work at Google” then blab for 2 mins and introduce the actual speaker for a meeting/conference. Similar ish to an influencer
so fair game to cash in on that legacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vint had an interview?!! Who had the gall to suggest he needs to come in and be evaluated?
When Google hired Guido van Rossumm, they put him through the same trials they require of every employee who is thinking of contributing Python code. Then they yelled at him for making Python inefficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now they have several Turing Award winners, and several Nobel Prize winners.
I wonder if the transformer inventors will ever get a Turing (honestly proving to be one of the most transformative - no pun intended - technologies of the millennium so far). I know pretty much all of them left Google but they'd still be counted as alumni.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated. The current design was implementable by zillions of cheap humans running cheap hardware. I always wonder if the internet is thesurvivor of the networking cambrian explosion, with a slight roll of the dice making another candidate the winner.
> Doing this brings you close to OSI, which famously failed by being overcomplicated. We're slowly reinventing OSI, one step at a time: OSI had multiple sessions per transport connection (QUIC), 20 byte addresses (IPv6) and a directory system with public-key infrastructure (DANE, vCard, SSHFP, etc). It's a shame TUBA (CLNP + TCP) failed.
See "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol", §8.3 TUBA Reviews:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752
The document explains why SIPP was chosen (with the tweak of 128-bit addresses instead of 64).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Actually, we tried that I'm always fascinated by how many people think IPv6 adoption would have gone lightning-fast if we just used This One Weird Trick, where said trick has actually been tried and didn't help. They usually refuse to back down even after you tell them so.
6to4 or NAT64 isn't the same thing as what all those IPv4+/5/7/8 people want, if that's what you were referring to. You don't actually own the IPv4-mapped-V6 address, as in packets don't get routed to you, they go to a relay that was notoriously flaky.
6to4 is exactly ownership:
> For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16.
> For example, the global IPv4 address 192.0.2.4 has the corresponding 6to4 prefix 2002:c000:0204::/48. This gives a prefix length of 48 bits, which leaves room for a 16-bit subnet field and 64 bit host addresses within the subnets.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4
The relaying is a necessity:
OLD DUAL NEW
----------------------
OLD | 32 | 32 | XX |
|------|------|------|
DUAL | 32 | 64 | 64 |
|------|------|------|
NEW | XX | 64 | 64 |
----------------------
There's no way around it: a non-IPng-having node will have to go through a translation box of some kind.