That they use IPv6 for their wireless division just makes it more ridiculous that they don't for their wired division - they clearly have the institutional knowledge to make it work.
Except that you probably want a different solution on wired. On mobile just about everybody is running with IPv6-native and the NAT64/DNS64 for IPv4. On wired, you may want to do something different. For example, if some of your customers need a pubic IPv4 address, then you want dual stack. You have to deal with CPEs doing IPv6 correctly, etc.
So it is better to see it as a completely different project. The core routing IPv6 is the same, but that tends to be the easy part.
There are far fewer people who have a contract that specifies that they will get a public IPv4 address on mobile.
On wired, just about every business account is assumed to have a public address and often a static one. In addition, a lot of gaming doesn't work behind carrier grade NAT.
In the mobile world, this expectation of public (or even static) IPv4 addresses is almost completely absent.
And there are over a billion sites. This wall shows the most "popular" sites. I'd like to see the same for the most "popular" ISPs. Getting ISPs to implement IPv6 is important because otherwise is impossible to test your own site and see if it works over ipv6 (i've been there).
Would you pay for it? If yes build a list of competent developers, ask them if they would build it and lunch a funding campaign. Give all the money to them and donate yourself. Building software is hard, building what you asked for is even harder.
Just implement it. It's not hard. All the libraries you need already exist and are relatively high quality. I have done it myself (non-free system) getting on to 10 years ago. It took me less than a year by myself and I even wrote my own SIP implementation. These days you could certainly do it faster.
There are a few problems, though. One is that NAT traversal will still probably mean that it will be unreliable unless you also set up a service to carry data. The other main problem is that nobody will pay you for it. There are literally hundreds of failed startups who realised how easy it is to build these things. They couldn't find a way to make money.
It should be easy because if people are forced to pay for a service to carry data in order to make it reliable, you should be able to make money. Right? The problem is that people won't pay for reliability because they think that the software is buggy (see comments above re: "I tried Hello, but it was buggy. No audio, etc." Classic).
Skype famously solved this problem by being evil and routing it's traffic through un-NATed users. Google solves this problem by having more bandwidth than god (and hangouts still sucks half the time).
But if you ignore the "there's no way to make money at this" problem, it's a pretty fun project to write.
I'm tired of this argument. My browser is not the only piece of software I'm running. I usually have virtualbox, a compiler, an IDE running. And sometimes some scripts/programs I wrote that does intensive computing on some data set.
To be clear: I proposed, if even possible, that would actually be a good way to resolve this debate.
"Yes, you can keep your guns, they're just totally ineffective at harming people now".
I wasn't taking a stance for/against gun control, or more broadly for/against the US Constitution. Telling someone to "just move to [some other country]" is needlessly hostile; the message it sends is, "You aren't welcome here."
The author of this post proposed a straw man of a "crazy sounding idea" to illustrate "solving the wrong problem"; what I'm saying is that it would be the right problem to solve if it were even possible.
(As far as my actual politics go on this matter: I'd like to see mandatory gun safety taught in places where they aren't illegal to prevent accidental misuse. Friends of friends have lost their lives to mishandled firearms. That's all you'll get out of me on HN.)
clickbait (google search): "(on the Internet) content, especially that of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page."
I think this safely fits under the sensational/provocative attention-grabbing umbrella.
EV certificates may improve a user's awareness of a spoofed page, but cannot do anything to make it more technically difficult to execute.
Providing an HTTPS login with an otherwise HTTP site is vulnerable to redirection to HTTP or to another site.
There is lots of evidence that suggests that in this configuration, cookies are often not set up properly (secure only) and can therefore be transmitted and stolen over HTTP.
which they already do with youtube