That’s what I originally thought would be the case. But, just statistically (looking at voter share here):

2019: Cons: 43.6% Lab: 32.1% LD: 11.6% SNP: 3.9%
2024: Lab: 33.7% Cons: 23.7% Reform: 14.3% LD: 12.2% (Weirdly, wikipedia has yet to include reform in their share ranking had to use BBC)

Labour picked up less than 2% more of the vote share. Reform took the vast majority of the tory lead away.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad the tories are out. But, it’s mostly because reform split the vote and Labour were second place in most constituencies. This is important to bear in mind while the conservatives sort themselves out to decide how they deal with not being right wing enough…

I think it’s important to note that the primary reason the conservative party lost many of their seats is because their vote was split between them, and an even more right wing party led by Nigel Farage. It wasn’t because of a huge shift to the left (or at least the centre left position the labour party occupy right now).

In my constituency for example, if you put the conservative + reform votes together, they would have beaten the nearest competitor by a country mile.

Well good news. Because ipv6 has a thing called privacy extensions which has been switched on by default on every device I’ve used.

That generates random ipv6 addresses (which are regularly rotated) that are used for outgoing connections. Your router should block incoming connections to those ips but the os will too. The proper permanent ip address isn’t used for outgoing connections and the address space allocated to each user makes a brute force scan more prohibitive than scanning the whole Ipv4 Internet.

So I’m going to say that using routable ipv6 addresses with privacy extensions is more secure than a single Ipv4 Nat address with dnat.

Weird. Ipv6 and YouTube stats for nerds shows between 140mbit and 600mbit depending on what’s being watched and the time of day.

Is it possible your isp has problems with their ipv6 setup?

IPv6 overheads should only have a marginal impact on max speeds.

Wow, an alien ion drive formula! Try to get warp drive out of it too!

Yeah. The 7.5 times (or is it 9.5 times, I forget) thing that has been thrown around since the cold war days never rings true to me.

The primary and secondary strikes for both sides will take out people living close to either a military installation or a major city.

Also there’s no way even a world war would involve every single country and every single island. There’s no way human life would be entirely obliterated. Most us posting here, perhaps. Certainly I’d likely be taken out in the second or third wave (close to London and also close to a military base). But life would go on.

Haha. No. Nothing so hopeful. The rich people will get even richer and everyone that used to be working class and middle class die a slow death.

I feel like I skipped right over this comment.

Just vpn to your house that has ipv6. Simples.

It’s all good until you get into a dependency loop with your email account passwords needing resetting, that have the email from the other account that needs resetting :P

I’ve had to boot a remote server into rescue after locking myself out.

I think most people have done this at least once.

Very specifically, in the upcoming US election. Going to say, yes you need to stop a certain tyrant from getting another term. But as a general comment this happens regardless.

Even all the years, at least in the UK, for quite some time a decade or so ago we had two parties, one that was 1mm left of centre and the other 1mm right of centre. If people didn’t like the fact they had a choice of Kang or Kodos, they did. But, everyone voted that way anyway.

That’s the point I (and the simpsons) is making though. If people didn’t vote for one of the two parties because “anything else is a wasted vote”. Even with FPTP you’d get a more varies result, at the very least in the upper/lower houses.

But that doesn’t happen, and that’s how they have us all by the balls.

There’s more than two parties to choose from. There’s only two realistic choices because as a population you all choose to make it that way.

Don’t get me wrong, the US isn’t alone here. We have the same problem here in the UK. I usually vote for a third party that more aligns with my own views, not one of the main two, and people tell me I “wasted my vote”. My response is: Did I waste my vote, or did you?

Simpsons of course parodied the situation best when the two aliens both ran for president.

I’m a bit confused by this:

“For [the pro-Palestinian protesters] to call for a cease-fire is Mr. Putin’s message, Mr. Putin’s message. Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see.

Let’s just put aside the fact that asking for a ceasefire for most people is a humanitarian request. You don’t need to have picked a side to accept that the ordinary people need some kind of help getting to safety (or relative safety). I’m not commenting on that here though.

It may be that I’m missing something obvious, in which case fine. But, how does a cease-fire in Gaza benefit Putin? I would say that any instability elsewhere in the world (Gaza, Houthi rebels, the Iran Pakistan thing the other week) work entirely in his favour. While the west (and some of the rest of the world) need to move to stabilise problems aside from the war in Ukraine, they have less time, resources to spend checking up on his activities in Ukraine. The media time is split away from what’s happening over there and of course, military budget is redirected away from arms for Ukraine, to operations in these other regions and arms for Israel.

I must be missing something, right?

Well, I’m not advocating against party banning. I’m just saying that if the reason a party is being banned is because there’s a real chance they might win an election. Then it really is just deferring the problem.

If the situation is that you ban a political party because you’re worried the people will vote for a facsist dictatorship (and I’m not saying that’s an impossibility these days), this is just a band-aid at best. Because clearly the people will get what they want somehow, some day.

The solution needs to be to educate people better, because no sane and educated turkey votes for Christmas (Thanksgiving I guess for the Americans).

What I came here to say!

Yeah, it’s a race to the bottom. But we have strict aviation rules across the west for this very reason.

The crash in Japan is actually an example of a failure that fits the Swiss Cheese model. I think ultimately most of the blame will fall on the surviving coastguard captain, but everyone involved had a chance to stop that crash. The coastguard messed up and joined the runway when he shouldn’t have. Mistake 1. ATC didn’t notice the warning on the monitor that would have drawn attention to this. Mistake 2. The pilots didn’t see the coastguard plane on the runway. Now, this one, is a tough one. With all the bigger planes with beacon/nav/interior lights, the runway lights, the airport lighting. It may well have been hard to see the small plane on the runway, but it had beacon lights on, and they had the opportunity to see it and abort the landing.

So essentially there were three chances to stop that accident and all three were missed.

I completely agree, designing a feature on a plane that doesn’t respect this way of thinking is not the behaviour of a responsible aviation company.

The Boeing MCAS story and the fact they were not held accountable at all terrifies me. Not the idea of the augmentation, I kinda understand they needed to fit bigger engines onto their existing frame until they can make and certify a new one. It’s not a good solution, but I can understand the business thinking behind it.

Here’s where it goes wrong for me.

• Not documenting the MCAS system, in order to cheat the system to not require recertification for the plane. Adding a system that can make trim changes without informing the pilots and that there isn’t a documented way to override was an accident waiting to happen.
• Worse to me, is the fact that while the aircraft has two AoA sensors, the MCAS system only takes input from one of them. This is terrifying. There’s no way the software can know the inputs could be wrong. So the software would effectively try to kill people all the while thinking it’s actually doing you a favour.

It was a debacle that should have been investigated further. Now, it’s not fair (although it probably is) to compare Boeing putting their toes into more flight automation against airbus. But the modern airbus jets use multiple sensor sources, and when there is a disagreement, they will reduce flight protections and inform the pilots about it, pilots that will be trained on the various flight modes that can come out of this. Just using one sensor was just a crazy decision, and I bet it was based on cost.

What’s going on now though is more a general QC/QA situation. Where I think it overlaps with the MCAS situation is that both the lack of redundancy in MCAS sensor input and the lack of QC in general just reeks of ruthless cost-cutting.