Comment by mort96
I have plenty of curiosity around how computers work. I've implemented compilers and interpreters, designed CPUs (I made a RISC-V CPU in Logisim which could run programs compiled with clang!), designed ISAs, back in university I had a lot of fun both writing a networking stack from almost-scratch (starting with only C and the raw ethernet packet API in Linux, building toy versions of ARP, IP, routing daemons and TCP) and writing a toy kernel, I have an ongoing game project where I'm writing the engine from scratch in C++ and using plain OpenGL to render, and this past year I've taken up PCB design and CAD. All this just because I want to learn stuff and make stuff. Don't assume that just because someone doesn't share your particular interests, they lack curiosity.
IPv6 has been around long enough that it's clearly a failed project. It's been 30 years and it hasn't even breached 50% adoption. It's not even at the hard part yet, which will be the long tail.
>IPv6 has been around long enough that it's clearly a failed project
You have a very radical definition of "failed". Take your emotions out, and perhaps you would get a more objective evaluation of the technology.
For one, it's very clear that IPv6 has only, truly received global attention after the depletion of IPv4 address space -- someone has already linked the Google IPv6 adoption page, go have a look at it, look at the flat line before 2012. That means we have spent about of 10~15 years of time deploying IPv6, not 30 years, and getting to 50% adoption in such a time period is not what I'd describe as a failure.
Secondly, if you are defining failure as "less than 50% prevalence in 30 years" then HTTPS before 2014 will probably fall under the same category too. (Don't underestimate the age of SSL/TLS.)
Do you consider HTTPS a failure?