luckylion

Individually, for you, what's the difference?

You use a service provider, if that service provider is down, your site is down. Does it matter to you that others are also down in that instance?

Maybe. would be a rare sight, because the anti-israel crowd was primarily celebrating on oct 7th (an invasion), and is silent on russia's invasion of ukraine (because russia is allied with Hamas & Iran). And they trace their grievance back to their failed attempt to drive the jews into the sea, which they call nakba. Far older than e.g. northern cyprus being invaded and occupied (ongoing) by turkey.

It's not super common, but common enough that I don't want to deal with it.

The other part is just how convenient it is with CF. Easy to configure, plenty of power and cheap compared to the other big ones. If they made their dashboard and permission-system better (no easy way to tell what a token can do last I checked), I'd be even more of a fan.

If Germany's Telekom was forced to peer on DE-CIX, I'd always use CF. Since they aren't and CF doesn't pay for peering, it's a hard choice for Germany but an easy one everywhere else.

It's not necessarily going through a Russian or Singaporean node though, on the sites I'm responsible for, AWS, GCP, Azure are in the top 5 for attackers. It's just that they don't care _at all_ about that happening.

I don't think you need world-wide law-enforcement, it'll be a big step ahead if you make owners & operators liable. You can limit exposure so nobody gets absolutely ruined, but anyone running wordpress 4.2 and getting their VPS abused for attacks currently has 0 incentive to change anything unless their website goes down. Give them a penalty of a few hundred dollars and suddenly they do. To keep things simple, collect from the hosters, they can then charge their customers, and suddenly they'll be interested in it as well, because they don't want to deal with that.

The criminals are not held liable, and neither are their enablers. There's very little chance anything will change that way.

It helps separate principled people from others. Some will say "countries must never be invaded, occupied, or annexed", others will add "... if it's done by Israel, but I'll absolutely ignore/support it if it's done by Turkey, Russia, China".

And the latter group is fundamentally not principled, they are biased to the core, and this is an easy way to tell them apart.

It's like people who are against capital punishment vs people who are against capital punishment when it affects them & their friends.

Consistency. "This must never stand" vs "This must not stand in this particular case only because it negatively affects my group".

Primarily, it will get you lots of candidates, some of them good.

And between those who are good, some of them will be eager to work, and others are eager to coast by.

Hard to predict in all roles, not just technical ones.

Has anyone tried to claim that lying on status pages is securities fraud?

100% uptime for Slack in this quarter? I guess that calculation is "not every user tried to connect when we were down, so technically we weren't down for 100% of users, so we really weren't down, just partially unavailable, and so we have 100% uptime".

This is the same on a lot of larger staffing agencies that promise to have all the people you need and can either do entire projects for you, or get you developers, designers, QA, project managers etc on short notice.

They have a few very competent developers who are primarily in the secondary sales in my experience. First sales contact is between non-technical management and their front-line sales (usually very attractive women). In the second sales contact, technical staff from the potential client is involved and they bring along their real developers. But those are not the ones you'll get on the project. They'll give you interviews with the developers you can get, and they're coached for the interviews and sound fine. But then in reality they are people who can't touch type and develop purely by trial and error without forming a mental model.

If hiring locally wasn't such a mess, nobody would talk to them. At some point even a junior developer is better than not having a developer at all. I assume AI will change that and they'll get replaced first.

I doubt robots.txt would fit. robots.txt allows or disallows access, but it does not state any claim. You can license content you don't own, put it on your website, and then exclude it in robots.txt without that implying any claims of rights to that content.

Ad companies, even the small ones, "Brand Protection" companies, IP lawyers looking for images that were used without license, Brand Marketing companies, where it matters also your competitors etc etc

If they even are AI crawlers. Could be just as well some exploit-scanners that are searching for endpoints they'd try to exploit. That wouldn't require storing the content, only the links.

"blind" isn't a noun though. "a noun person" is what you mentioned, but "an adjective person" is different. A tall person isn't all about their height, they're just way above average in height. "A person with tallness" would emphasize the height aspect in a strange way.

if they will lose data when you're on a rarely used browser, can you really trust them not to lose data in general?

"yes, your car exploded, but you were driving on a dirt drive way. it works just fine on the highway"

Likely country blocks in this case, can't have the mean Europeans read the precious content. Works fine with a US VPN (bad IP reputation), doesn't work with my german local provider (good IP reputation).

Minitel in France, Btx in Germany and undoubtedly other system already had millions of users when the WWW was "invented", and were arguably what it was the next generation of. It was quite the improvement, but yeah, the article sounds too much like "there was nothing, then I came along and now we have the WWW, so listen to me".

You're living in Berlin, the city that is subsidized to the sum of 3.8bn Euros by the much more rural southern states. And yet somehow _they_ are the ones who don't want to pay their share?

Berlin does things to people.

You could also sign an NDA. And then you'd be bound by that NDA to not disclose the information it is protecting. Should penalties from that should also be non-enforceable because it would limit what you can say?

Does that have any implications on liability for content? They're no longer just a provider, they are re-licensing and marketing content. Are they losing protection?

My point is that micro-studies like that on a tiny random (or even counter-indicated, "healthy") selection of the general population don't tell you much for drugs that do specific things.

"Antibiotics don't improve your life, but can damage your health" would likely be the outcome on 13 randomly selected healthy individuals. But do the same study on 13 people with a bacterial infection susceptible to antibiotics and your results will be vastly different.

Research on _13_ people, that's a very important caveat when evaluating something like adderal.

> We've managed to go 80-odd years with a reasonable global norm against redrawing borders, and it is worth a lot to demonstrate that we- the global community- do not acquiesce

The previous Russian imperial project, the Soviet Union, ended 35 years ago, not 80. It's easy to overlook that they forcibly redrew borders and kept them redrawn for decades (and still to this day do keep some territories they conquered in imperialist wars when they were still allied with Nazi Germany).

It's not like ww2 where you have increasingly fewer people who were old enough to consciously experience it. It's very likely that most people on this forum were around for the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe from Russian imperialism.

I suppose the title should be _Minimalist_ CSS Framework. At 71kb it really isn't minimal.

But globes aren't really that practical for navigation. You can plan your voyage, but when you're at sea, how do you make sure you're going in the right direction? Mercator has the advantage that you can use your compass and as long as you stay on course, you'll arrive at your destination.

Keep in mind: that's 500 years ago, not 50 years ago. There's no question that we have better tools today but the question was why the mercator projection was so successful it became the default. I think "it was super useful at the time because it made navigation easy, reliable, and available to everyone, at any any weather" is a much more compelling explanation than "the would-be colonizers spread it because their home-countries were enlarged and they liked that and used it to oppress the equatorial countries".

> Despite the rush to integrate powerful new models, about 5% of AI pilot programs achieve rapid revenue acceleration; the vast majority stall, delivering little to no measurable impact on P&L. [1]

"We wanted to make money with it, but we didn't immediately make a lot of money" feels very different from "the project failed to deliver what it set out to".

[1] https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generat...

Did they have better map projections for cross-oceanic navigation 500 years ago when the mercator projection was invented?

> However, ask yourself why the mercator projection was so popular for so long, and why resistance to other projections took so long to counter.

Wasn't that primarily because of sea trade and the mercator projection being very useful for that because you can draw a straight line on it and then set a straight course?

Has fortune.com followed forbes.com in renting out their authority to random people/entities who want to publish something on their site?

I guess this doesn't fall under Site Reputation Abuse for google. But why not?

Within six (?) weeks, you can simply charge back and the money will be back in your account very quickly.

After that, it's a much more formal process where your bank has to get in contact with the other bank and it can take weeks.

> I'm not defining liberties as privileges, I'm merely pointing out that your right to liberty ends where it infringes on somebody else's (and vice versa).

Yet you included privileges (like getting tax-funded things) in those liberties that would be affected. That's muddying the waters. I'm sure you're well aware of the escalating utilitarian thought experiments that use the same type of argument ("but many people would benefit from doing X to Y").

On guns: You're moving the goal post from guns being carried to guns being used. Statistically, you don't need to worry about guns being drawn in normal interactions in the USA - it happens, it happens a lot more often than in Europe, but it's not like there's a daily shoot-out at the grocery store unless you live in some areas with a lot of gang activity.

But risk-perception is subjective. Where I spend a month in the US doing average things and expect to not see a single gun being raised, you might expect to see them on two occasions. Is expectation of risk a liberty that's infringed? I don't think so.

There's plenty of good arguments for strong firearm regulation, but it's not a freedom vs freedom thing. There's a right not to be harmed, but it doesn't extend to potential abstract harm.