And you believe that it's not that the Right has succeeded in pushing anti-LGBT propaganda onto young white men so much that it has tipped them towards that stance, but rather that it is genuine backlash by young white men against LGBT beliefs?
That isn't a tenet. A tenet is a specific belief, like, "Jesus is the son of God", to use a Christian example. I am asking, because given that LGBT is a descriptive label for a group and not a prescriptive belief system/ ideology, I am dubious that you can list an ideological tenet.
So first off, I think it's safe to assume that the article is not about going and removing IPv4 on your company's corporate networks for a month, so I've been speaking in regards to home internet service.
NAT is not a firewall, but in normal use by the average home internet user it is a means to prevent computers outside of their network from reaching computers inside the network without ports being forwarded on the router, or the internal machine initiating the connection. If you do not have a firewall on the devices, and they are not behind a NAT gateway/router, then they are by default exposing ports. There's no inherent guarantee that a router has a firewall configured properly, or has it enabled.
I’ve never seen NAT in combination with IPv6 and I’ve seen plenty of deployments at our customers.
I'm interested in how this works. In a normal IPv4 scenario for home internet users, you are assigned a single IP for your router by your ISP, and internal addressing is usually handled by router-resident DHCP automatically. In the deployments you're seeing, are ISPs handing out /120 blocks to each router? Does that require the ISP to have access to alter your home router, or do customers configure the DHCP themselves (which seems unlikely to scale)?
I admittedly did not read the original Mastodon post from nixCraft about the purpose of No NAT November, but surely it's not just about moving to IPv6? You can (and usually would) still do NATing with IPv6. You don't want every device to be internet-exposed, but still want them to be able to access the internet (and who wants to configure internet-defensive firewall rules on all their internal home hosts)?
I’m not saying those who pushed to throw the election rather than picking the lesser of two evils had the right idea, they clearly didn’t and are part of the reason we are where we are. But you know what would have prevented that? Not simply being the lesser of two evils.
This is the conversation I had with so many people. It doesn't matter if you think voters are dumb to do something (i.e. stay home in protest over Gaza): if you know they're going to do that, you actually have to react accordingly.
But at this point I'm convinced the Democratic Party leadership would rather Republicans win than progressives, because Republicans don't threaten their positions in the party.
I'm also afraid that the message they will take away is, "an important portion of our base doesn't want a woman as president", rather than, "there's a portion of our base that we need to excise because they're misogynists".
You can essentially achieve this with some routers with a "DMZ" network segment/ device, so all incoming requests to your external IP get forwarded to it automatically. You don't even need to disable NAT if you set it up well.
Something the article doesn't clarify is whether this is meant to only to apply to kids in Australia. Normally that would be obvious, except that Australia already has tried to demand social media companies remove content even for non-Australian users on the basis that Australians could bypass geo blocking with VPNs. If age checks are location/ IP based, they could make the same (bad) argument.
Games are art, and art is valuable for how it enriches.
Not all art is good art, and there are plenty of games that no one is trying to preserve.
Capitalism is currently also killing off lots of non-video game art that it can't profit off of. Tons of old shows, movies, books, and music are out of print, and being held and often lost by the IP holders.
If we allow art to become solely a vehicle for generating profit, we are going to lose out on so much beauty, talent, culture, and history.
This (sandbox games that are all about "pure" gameplay, where the narrative is made by the pseudo-random events) is my bag!
In no particular order except for #1, these are my top-10:
Kenshi
Post-apocalyptic alien planet sandbox that can be a colony simulator, a faction-combat game, an exploration and boss-fighting game, and so much more. This is by far and away my TOP recommendation.
Rimworld
Dwarf Fortress-like colony simulator set on proc-gen alien planets. Supremely mod-able.
Starsector
Sandbox space game with a bit of everything. You can play it in so many ways, and there are so many encounters and missions and things to do. Tons of mods.
Mount and Blade: Warband
A medieval-combat "simulator" where you lead a... Warband of soldiers around a faux medieval world. First-person combat with a lot of great complexity. Supports mods.
Derail Valley
A train-driving simulator, where you just take contracts to haul stuff between towns/stations/etc. Multiple engines to drive, and a lot of cool physics to contend with.
Project Zomboid
Zombie apocalypse survival simulator, with multiplayer. Lots of mods.
Spore
A sandbox classic, where you usher a species as it evolves from protozoa to being an interstellar species.
The Sims 3
Playing house for adults (and kids). Build a house, decorate it, get a good job, have kids and pets. The unattainable Millennial fantasy.
Starbound
Universe exploration sandbox, with a bunch of humanoid aliens you have to ally with to defeat a big monster thing. Moddable.
X4: Foundations
Economic simulation sandbox set in space. Build stations, ships, influence wars between empires using economic sway... Very very slow, but fulfilling.
There is a big difference between saying 2 people have shared values, and saying that 2 people have similar political views, goals in life, etc.
"They both want a legal path to citizenship for immigrants"
Sure, but one group only wants that for a small number of specific types of immigrants (e.g. high "value" immigrants with specialized skills), and another group wants that for basically anyone who isn't a rapist (I am in the second group, to be clear).
"They both want their kids to have good opportunities in life"
But one sees that as a zero-sum proposition, where someone else's kid getting a good job means their kids can't get that job, and see that as a normal part of life, and another group will see it as a failure to actually provide on the promise of that opportunity.
"A majority of people acknowledge anthropocentric climate change"
But one group is unwilling to change legislation in ways that will overtly impact their lifestyles in order to counter it, and another wants massive legislative updates in order to rein in the (lifestyle) companies most responsible.
If I had to put a label to the problem, if say it's an intrinsic issue of individualism versus collectivism.
If you abstract end goals/ values high enough, everyone wants the same thing, but that is hugely deceptive to the reality of our divisions, which are about what those values should look like in implementation.
Basically yes, a chatbot and the ability to do simple actions (agents). So in their fantasy universe, instead of clicking on Firefox and typing a query in the search bar, you'd ask the desktop to search for something, and it would do those steps.
That's all just an excuse though, to explain why they need to collect all your local data. :P
The secret I've found to a wonderful work life balance is to become indispensable in knowledge, but to not do much or any labor; just be a walking encyclopedia for your job role that enables others to do their's.
For managers who do not yet understand your new work dynamic, make sure to say 'yes' , very enthusiastically, to whatever they ask, but then just don't actually do it. They'll learn to stop asking, but they can't afford to lose you either.
And you believe that it's not that the Right has succeeded in pushing anti-LGBT propaganda onto young white men so much that it has tipped them towards that stance, but rather that it is genuine backlash by young white men against LGBT beliefs?