I think the big difference is that python 3 took over rather quickly once it hit a threshold. There was a clearer path for adoption too: as more major packages started supporting python3, adoption accelerated and eventually python2 support was dropped. For IPv6 it's a lot less straightforward. You could cling on to IPv4 with basically 0 practical downsides in the current ecosystem as everything that supports IPv6 also supports IPv4, and IPv6 only networking basically doesn't exist. Even mobile users with only IPv6 adresses get to use IPv4-only services through some translation layer that every ISP has to provide when running IPv6.

I don't see the difference. You are describing the adoption curve (a logistic function) for almost anything.

As with IPv4/IPv6, with Python 2.7/3 you had, even at the very end, a group of stubborn maintainers who didn't put in the effort to transition.

The hard end of Python 2.7 support took care of all that in a hurry.

Well I don't think most people choose who they work with. Even if you like your team a lot, you might have a discussion with someone from another team or division, and that's where it's useful to have a good chat history haha.

American IT Mafia? That provides free certificates? You'd think setting up renewal would be less of a hassle than dealing and paying CAs even if it's once every 3 years, so that would be a rather benevolent mafia. Which of those CAs went out of business by the way?

Do you think Let's encrypt is less popular outside the US?

StartSSL, WoSign were the ones I've used. Very convenient services, much more convenient, compared to this certbot insanity.

I think that the rest of the world does not have much choice, because US uses their IT superiority to force political decisions to the rest of the world. I experienced that first-hand. When my country wanted to implement MITM to improve Internet usability for their citizens, US companies blacklisted government root certificate which disrupted this scheme and forced my country to roll back this plan. Now I have lots of websites completely blocked, instead of more careful and precise per-page blocking that would only be possible with MITM.

Hopefully, over time, China and Russia will destroy this superiority and will provide viable alternatives.

In what way do MITM certificates "improve Internet usability for their citizens"?

I just explained that. Basically government wants to block some specific webpage, say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursultan_Nazarbayev. Without MITM, they'll end up with blocking the entire en.wikipedia.org domain, so citizens will lose access to a lot of information. With MITM, they'll be able to target precisely one page and I can read any other wikipedia article without issues.

And with MITM they can read literally all of your private internet traffic… That seems like a significantly worse tradeoff to just using a VPN to browse Wikipedia.

I had to deal with StartCom once many years ago, before LetsEncrypt. They had the rudest customer service I think I've ever encountered.

The Canadian parliament can vote laws that break/infringe upon most of our charter rights with a simple majority, using the non-withstanding clause. The Quebec government has already used it and is signaling that it will use that clause even more often.

Again, that requires a simple parliament majority and courts aren't allowed to really do anything about a law once that clause is invoked. That makes for one of the worst places to be in for something like grapheneOS in the long term. You're just a single election away from a PM like Legault deciding that encryption is against "Canadian values" or something.

(They wouldn't even need that to restrict encryption, but it still makes us unique in the west since it's just a "routine" clause that can be invoked to suspend almost every possible legal challenge against a law outside of any emergency situation or extraordinary circumstance, and is used almost on a yearly basis nowadays )

> but it still makes us unique in the west since it's just a "routine" clause that can be invoked to suspend almost every possible legal challenge against a law

It is not unique in the West, or even specifically in those parts of the West that share the same head of state as Canada; in fact, Britain itself has a more extreme form of it given Parliamentary sovereignty.

It is unique in the sense that the charter itself has a clause that makes itself almost useless. And that provinces can also use it at will (that's really the main problem, as the federal government is way less likely to use it, and hasn't used it), and doing so short circuits any federal court oversight.

But I agree that parliamentary sovereignty is an even bigger can of worms.

It's mostly about pay too. And yeah some people want more exciting jobs and maybe even outlandish stuff like the ones you listed (regardless of the sarcasm!). Yes at the end of the day most software isn't super exciting, but it doesn't make a tech stack or platform where most of your job prospects would approximate to "working on some run of the mill, mega enterprise or SMB software project" any more attractive for devs.

Especially when even its advocates somehow use that as an "upside". It might very well be for a lot of people! But it's also a massive turn off for others. I have never worked in a startup or big tech, and work on very concrete and critical products yet I'd very much rather work on even outlandish SV stuff (at least the pay is usually great and the job environment could be good!) rather than on some SMB CRUD or some generic backend service. If I don't have a choice I could do it but it's not super enticing.

For all of the "SV startups" that are working on hard tech problems (new DBs, LLMs, etc.) there are thousands of SV startup CRUD apps.

Most SV tech stacks are romanticized when in reality they are just are all mostly some flavor of a MEAN stack that is building a CRUD. The allure is the lottery payout and a clean slate tech stack, not that the specific tech itself is used.

Which version worked flawlessly? And I guess blazor can work great but that's super specific to what you use it for. Much more so than most front end technologies/stacks. And both WASM and Server versions have a lot of compromises.

I don't think that expecting to get the product you pay for (even if it's just crowdfunding) is too much? Or putting them under too much scrutiny? I don't think people expect less from any other tech company? It's just really basic stuff.

Huh? You think that the VoLTE requirement is something unique to the US? What new innovations are you referring to by the way?

React isn't 100kb when compressed (which is how 99% of websites deliver it to clients). IIRC it's 7.4kb when minified and 2.4k when minified+gzipped. That's smaller than typically "small" frameworks like htmx.

In fact, Backbone is 17.7kb minified+g zipped. So I guess other frameworks make less sense than react?

Why? The only complaint I hear about and sort of agree with is that they use snaps, and that's not always a good idea for some packages. But otherwise, for regular users, I'd say Ubuntu has much less foot guns than even Mint. Everything just works, and it's easier to find support and help online whenever something doesn't. I

Pop_os is in a weird state right now too, with the upcoming migration to their new GUI framework

Mint is pretty much Ubuntu with a saner DE. But don't underestimate the benefits of the latter.

I wouldn't say "saner", I think it's just more familiar for Windows users.