> I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1
"v-next" 8.8.8.8 isn't the same thing as IPv4 8.8.8.8, so you now have two "interfaces" running different versions of IP with identical addresses.
> because most devices will implement the minimum. Android doesn't support dhcp6. My router is like most and has no option to enable dhcp6 or nat6 anyway.
Sucks to be you but irrelevant to the protocol.
> Ipv6 spec also says that a router could either default allow in or not via its firewall.
Just like in IPv4 - in the pre-NAT world (or if your ISP assigned you a block of v4 addresses), if you were connecting a device to the public internet it would have be assigned a routable v4 address and it would be up to the administrator what traffic they accepted.
> 7. give every device its own public IP by default.
Both of these are optional. Don’t want them? Don’t use them - if you don’t configure them, it won’t happen.
> 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default
That’s not a new feature with v6.
> Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 now. If anyone switches to the new thing, they know where to find me.
Now you (and everything in between) have to be able to handle packets addressed to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0, so you’ve done point 4 without knowing it.
> The author could not find the elusive videos of maniacal Whites stabbing, beheading, assaulting, machete-ing or raping non-White strangers in the streets because they do not exist
> This is nothing compared to the original "magic" roundabout of Swindon, Wiltshire.
There should be a law (I'd suggest Dougal's Law) describing how any discussion of road design will inevitably lead to a mention of the Magic Roundabout :D
I mean, I've literally linked to the rules which say it's not one and done and that if you're called up again you're not entitled to an excusal just because you've previously served at any point in your lifetime...
But yes, I do also know people who have been called up at most once. That is the nature of random selection.
> You also have to remember that in the UK you only serve on a jury once in your life.
Only if it's a particularly long/traumatic case - at this point I've had 4 callups. Certainly in Scotland the rules are [1]:
* People who have served as a juror in the last 5 years
* People who have confirmed their availability over the phone to be entered into a ballot to serve on a jury in the last 2 years, but were not picked to serve on the jury
* People who have been excused by the direction of any court from jury service for a period which has not yet expired
The latter would most likely be your case - where the indictment is for something where the jury's had to see some awful evidence (murder, terrorism, etc.), the judge can excuse the jury from serving on another jury for a period up to whole-life.
I did see a Reddit thing where some tourists were planning to stay in the Lake District and visit Edinburgh and Stonehenge, all during winter.
Could've been ragebait, to be fair - they weren't interested when people pointed out that things like weather, hours of daylight, travel time were all going to be against them (or even that the Lake District is a pretty tourist-friendly place to start with).
Google Maps says between 5 and 6 hours and 227 miles - doing that in 3.5 hours would be averaging 65mph. Good luck with that, especially when the speed limit on the A9 itself is 60 mph for cars!
The US interstate is probably more comparable with UK motorways.
Other than a time lag (and petrol prices don't generally change often enough to matter IME), I can't say I ever noticed any of them being that inaccurate.
myAutomate (the owners of Petrolprices.com) talk about having "over 60 years combined expertise in the fuel industry", so I suppose I'd be surprised if it's all crowdsourced data - they've probably made arrangements with at least the big players, in which case the forced publication is much of a muchness?
> I think it's exactly that, the UK has never had this so people there either choose by brand or just convenience.
We've had it for years (as noted in other comments there's a few different people like the RAC, AA and Petrolprices.com all maintaining their own lists - a quick check of my email has messages from the latter going back to 2011). The new part is that this is from the government and the data is freely accessible (Petrolprices in particular covered their pages in ads, so I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to exchange money for the data).
The context to this is that, especially since the pandemic, there's been a complaint with the Competition and Markets Authority that the petrol stations were quick to raise prices, slow to lower them, and weren't competing with each other[1]:
> The CMA found that retail prices tended to "rise like a rocket, but fall like a feather" in response to increases or decreases in the cost of crude oil.
Independent petrol stations have virtually disappeared and you don't have to look too hard to see that in an area they tend to all raise or lower their prices in virtual lockstep. Gathering this data would make the case significantly easier if the next step were that some of the petrol station operators had to be broken up to encourage more competition.
This isn’t a new thing either; Farage has been challenged over claiming to align with far-right Northern Irish Unionist parties like Traditional Unionist Voice while recording Cameos saying things like “up the ‘RA”.
The ignorance isn’t a mistake, it’s part of the brand that lets them spout whatever their audience wants ts to hear.
Maybe that's the answer - the USA needs to hold a referendum on becoming a British colony again. It's 250 years since they declared independence, maybe they've changed their mind on having a king? (/s)
No they wouldn't. UPnP is not requisite, certainly not standard, or necessarily built-in. For example, the router I've got doesn't implement UPnP.
It's not unusual for it to be disabled, because it's a security issue that something with no authentication can punch enduring holes out through NAT.
It's also irrelevant in a scenario where the ISP's using CGNAT.
I'm sure the Switch deals with conflict resolution with multiple consoles on the same network too but shrug it's another example of how NAT is a pain and also contradicts your assertion that incoming connections would be a breach of ISP ToS [1].
Edit: A quick Google suggests the Switch originally didn't support UPnP, and the Switch 2 now supports IPv6.