Think they mean local networks.

If an IT department carefully curates IPv4 but ignores IPv6, then a rogue actor can set up a parallel IPv6 network largely without being noticed.

IPv6 can be managed, just that it is a blindside for a lot of these departments.

Come on, it's e easy to remember one IPv6 address: ::1

Having the breathing room is great.

You have two teams that independently set up private networks but now someone has to talk to them both?

In IPv4, they likely stepped on the same private subnets. In ipv6, they pretty much certainly did not step in the same ULA prefixes. My VPN setup is a mess of a maze to deal with the fact that most things I connect to are all independently allocated 10. subnets, with the IPv6 focused customer being easiest.

Also, if you want to embed information in your addressing, like vlan I'd or room information.

Besides, you can have addresses like fd37:5f1a:b4c1::feed:face, and that's fun isn't it?

Well sometimes the lla is not predictable, some stacks take privacy addresses to lla, which is silly but they do it. Of course you can multicast ping and check your neighbor table to get the lla chosen in such cases.

But you could do the same thing with a rogue DHCP server I IPv4... With similar methods to prevent the misbehavior on networks

If someone never had and is not looking for a tenant and is actively waiting for someone to buy their property, they are not a landlord.

Usually they have moved into their new home and have their uninhabited house on the market trying to get rid of it.

Maybe I'm missing implication in another culture, but around me landlord specifically refers to someone owning a home that is being actively rented/leased by another. If you haven't had tenants, you aren't considered a landlord

Based on my experience, a house on the market is usally being sold by someone who lived in it. The seller being a landlord is plausible, but I'd usually just generically refer to that party as 'the seller'.

Landlords tend to hold on to their revenue streams harder than a person holds on to their own residence.

Next chapter needs to be: "Fucking magnets, how do they work?"

Bought a house, but there was a landlord?

If they offered to let you buy it for the fair market value of the home, would you? That's the only viable way for them to extract that house value without evicting you. A fair answer could be absolutely, and perhaps that should be something renters are given some rights to do, but just pointing out that a tax assessment doesn't mean they have usable money unless they can do something to cash in.

When I was in college, renting made sense. I wasn't going to be there but like two years. I wouldn't have hardly accumulated any equity and had the pain of trying to sell at the end.

I've known people with like two year work assignments where renting made sense.

I cannot fathom it, but I have a coworker who swears by renting even though he hasn't moved in years and has no intention to move ever. I think the 'mantaining your own house is scary' articles hit him hard and he's now convinced that owning a household means you are somehow constantly having to fix things yourself for lots of money. So he may have been bamboozled, but certainly limited term living makes sense.