> Yes. My ISP will rent me a single IPv4 address for $10 per month.
At that price point you can get a small vm, but if you have a dedicated server you want to use on-prem, 10$/mo seems like a reasonable price.
> Or I can use DHCP, where my IPv4 address can change at their whim.
Check the dhcp.lease to make sure, I used to think that, then I looked at the dhcp lease and the IP was being reserved for up to 48 hours of disconnection. I went years without it ever being released.
Phone operators won't necessarily transmit this information to you, the true ISP operator is the DHCP server. Not only is it more knowledgeable, but DHCPd has no incentive to upsell you, just provides you with what it is configured to.
I'd even go as far as checking if you can send parameters during the dhcp lease request, maybe you can request a longer lease on the IP.
There's a right way to do things, it's not trivial to discern from the wrong way to do it, but once you see it, you notice that you lose almost nothing, it's not like the 'wrong' way is simpler, it's just 'wronger', all the way through. I guess the reason they persist is sunk-cost fallacy, the businesses and people that went with NAT then developed STUN, and then they developed ICE, and then they develop Tailscale, every time you need to invent a bigger spade to dig you out of the hole and into a deeper one.
Or you can just use IPv4. But aghast, you have to pay 10$/month (or learn DHCP)
There's nothing to learn here in the end. Its just rules imposed by the ISP. I've had places where the leases expired weekly, and I'd often get a different public IP address when renewed. No amount of learning will change this. If I want out of that, I'd have to pay extra money every month.
I've also had ISPs where I've had the same IPv4 address for years. So long as I was online around the time of the lease renewal, I was pretty much guaranteed to get the same IP. YMMV.
> At that price point you can get a small vm, but if you have a dedicated server you want to use on-prem, 10$/mo seems like a reasonable price.
So I can spend $10/mo for each IP address I want, or I can just use IPv6 where my ISP gives me 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 IP addresses (a /60) by default for free. Hmm...which to choose...
No argument from me here on the /56 vs a /60, I play the cards I'm dealt. AT&T being the same shitbags they've always been. But its multi-gigabit fiber from them or questionable DOCSIS from Spectrum, and I've never met an honest Spectrum representative. I refuse to do business with them after all the fraud they've given me over the years.
In the end its still a bajillion-ish IPv6 addresses I have to play with versus the one-ish I have with IPv4.
It's not the foreign producer who must raise her prices to pay for the tax. It's the local importer. The net effect on the consumer is that the price of imported goods goes up so then, as you say, the local producers can raise their prices and increase their profits.
I don't understand how independent health professionals can avoid using self-hosted email. Think of your neighborhood psychologist: any email she sends to or receives from a patient or potential patient should be completely confidential, down to the email address of the correspondents. It's no secret that Google and Microsoft "read" the emails they send and receive and mine them for information.
And yet, a quick search of "psychologists near me" in Google Maps gives me a list of professionals most of whose email addresses have MX records pointing to Google servers.
> teachers usually remain on payroll throughout the summer.
That is not exactly accurate. When I was teaching, my salary was for 9 months only. I was paid in 12 monthly installments to smooth out my income, but technically I was not on the University's payroll during the summer months. That allowed me to seek full-time employment elsewhere (e.g. consulting) during the summer which was not allowed during the other 9 months.
I'm not rich, but I give a lot of money every year to charity, to try to help those who need help. The United States is the richest country in the world. It was also giving to charity to help those who badly needed help. It was a small amount compared to its budget, and we called it USAID. To protect the money from being scammed by those running the countries we were helping, the US itself administered those programs as much as possible. We know how much Trump donates to charity: bupkis (read about the Donald J. Trump Foundation) and I have a pretty good inkling that Musk donates even less.
Exactly. Since 2001, the amount of money we’ve spent on foreign aid is a DROP in the bucket between 0.7% and 1.4% of the federal budget; not much for us - but had an outsized impact on people in the greatest need.
It’s helped alleviate poverty, supported disaster relief, and even from a purely US centric motive helped to advanced our own interests by strengthening U.S. soft power abroad.
You're spending your own money. I'm pretty sure that if there was one member of your family that didn't have money for food or medicine, you'd spend it there instead of donating it, wouldn't you?
If you've absorbed the American teaching that "if you just work hard you'll be successful", then you'd have to believe the opposite: "if you're not successful that means you're lazy".
I guess they never heard of a certain George Santos either.
reply