[SPBS]

1. Nobody uses UUIDv1. Why use UUIDv1 as a straw man argument?

2. UUID strings are awful for storage -- don't use them. Yes there are databases that support UUIDs natively, why is whether or not a UUID fits into a machine word relevant? You use UUIDs for its other properties that 64-bit integers cannot offer. KSUIDs are touted as fixing all the aforementioned issues but they're even bigger than UUIDs.

3. Both KSUIDs and UUIDs are hard for humans to read compared to 64-bit integers.

4. You don't have to encode UUIDs as hexadecimal numbers plus dashes. You can choose any binary encoding you want, I am partial to Crockford Base32 because of how general-purpose it is (no vulgarities, case insensitive so it works on Windows filesystems).

5. I still consider time-sortable UUID alternatives (like ULID) to be UUIDs. This article should have explicitly mentioned UUIDv1 and UUIDv4 in the title and it wouldn't have been so flamebait.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

64 bit integers are easier just because we also end up using low numbers

9,223,372,036,854,775,807 is as nasty as a UUID to remember and type