will4274

Yeah. And when you don't configure your TLS certificate correctly, people can't connect to your webpage.

The anti-email authenticity standards gang has always smelled like the anti-TLS gang to me.

No, the democratic electoral base is consistently and loudly complaining that after the primaries, most democrat candidates become moderates in the general election

Actually, about the same number of Democrats say their candidates are too liberal as not liberal enough. E.g. for Harris, both numbers hover between 10 and 15 percent.

The not liberal enough cohort is especially loud, particularly online, but the data shows candidates end up about at the primary voter average, as you might expect.

Enough to convince a jury of their peers.

? He moved them because his wife asked him to, because his wife didn't want the police to find them, because they spoke to her motive. So it would have obstructed the investigation by making it harder to prove her motive.

Like how is this complicated? Somebody commits a crime and then calls you and says "Hey can you hide X so the cops don't find it?" Always a crime to hide X in these circumstances.

In this case, the roommate conspired to setup an ambush of police officers, an ambush which resulted in one of the police officers being shot in the neck. The roommate didn't "attend a protest" except by the broadest possible definition.

It's a crime to deliberately conceal another crime, whether you do it by raking leaves, deleting Internet posts, or setting your car on fire. It's called accessory after the fact.

Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.

Yes, you ban some legitimate customers with v4. But the span between the smallest allocations and biggest allocations is much smaller, so simple strategies (like banning the bad address) scale further.

It's difficult for servers to know how big client allocations are. With v4, pretty much everybody got /32s, but with v6, sizes vary. So you've got to start with small bans, and then switch to big bans later, but not too aggressively so you don't accidentally ban legitimate customers. It's a tricky balance.

It's not possible, technically, to run effective anti-cheat server-side. Clients need precise enemy location data for things like sound effects. The server can't tell if the client is using the data for unfair purposes or not.

Did you restore Internet Explorer from Windows 7?

It seems uncontroversial that the state of web browsers is improved since Win 7

What people realy want: as little OS as possible to let them run just the things on their computer they want to run.

The truth is - it's more complicated than that. People want three contradictory things:

1. To not be nagged for things like setting up cloud backups.

2. To not have data sent to the cloud without consent.

3. To be able to get their data back, if their hard drive dies.

Microsoft picks 2 and 3.

I recently got locked out of my machine because logging in with the mandatory Microsoft account-backed primary user of my machine didn't work anymore. It said I was offline and I had to use the "previous password" even though I didn't have a previous password for that account

Not sure what's so confusing here... When Windows is online, it checks your password against the cloud and updates the local store. When Windows is offline, it checks your password against a local store. By previous password, Windows just means the password you used on the last successful login for the user on that machine.

when you look at the whole of human political history

When you look at the whole of human political history, the vast majority of politican systems have been authoritarian. Anybody who supports a system of government where average people get to vote (as both the Republicans and Democrats do) is part of the super ultra far left.

Do you not see how silly this is?

You'd be better off if you stopped seeing groups of tens of millions of people as enemies. That sort of thinking is how genocides start.

You forgot to include an argument in your comment. I cited specific positive impacts (tax revenue) but you just talked about negative impact in the abstract, without citing anything specific, and then went on a rant about how the world works.

Why? Datacenters have smaller effects on neighbors than other industries. No runoff like farming, no pollution like factories

One out of three. Datacenters use small land and water compared to just about any other industry. The power consumption is significant.

The French are just arrogant enough to believe themselves major players on the world stage.

You're right about the values disconnect. In America, we believe in democracy and individual rights. In Europe, y'all still have kings and queens and authoritarian governments.

In 2025, USA GDP grew by 2.0%. In 2025, EU GDP grew by 1.5%. Government spending (a proxy for government power) is a fraction of GDP, usually between 10% of GDP and 30% of GDP.

So, while the US may not be doing particularly well right now, it's still doing better than Europe.

If Europe didn't have America as an ally, Europe wouldn't exist in 50 years.

The data center jobs are middle class. With progressive taxation, those 30 middle class jobs generate about 100 average people's worth of revenue. Presumably Lewiston has schools which could use the funds.

And presumably everybody in Lewiston already has lunch somewhere, so a new sandwich shop that was successful would put another lunch spot out of business, for a net zero jobs.

Edit: the larger point here is that jobs, particularly skilled jobs, don't grow on trees (much like money). New technologies and new jobs replace old technologies and old jobs. If you put a ban on new technologies and new jobs, you'll just have more unemployed people.

- Datacenters don't use tons of water compared to just about any other business.

- It's not really fair to blame datacenters for using the municipality's electricity and then blame them again for being loud and generating electricity instead of using the municipality's electricity. Any given datacenter is only doing one of these.

- Presumably, the municipality's tax dollars benefit the people who live in the municipality in the form of better services

Datacenters might not be as potentially destructive, but they're also a massive net negative for the community in many real world ways

No they aren't. Datacenters are air conditioned buildings that consume a moderate amount of power and generate a moderate amount of tax revenue through a small number of middle class jobs. They use a negligible amount of water compared to golf and farming and produce a negligible amount of heat compared to cars.

In this case, it was the opinions of the politician who would receive more votes than anybody else in the history of the USA just a few years later.

It's a bit more like a physical business with a "public welcome" policy like a coffee shop going viral and then having tens of thousands of people walking in and taking pictures but not buying coffee. It's disruptive, but not illegal.

Acme.com is welcome to require authentication for all pages but their home page, which would quickly cause the traffic to drop. They don't want to do this - like the coffee shop, they want to be open to public, and for good reasons.

Sometimes the use profile changes dramatically in a short time. 15 years ago, Netflix created the video streaming market and shared bandwidth capacity that had been excessive before wasn't enough. 15 years before that, Google did the same thing when they created search and started driving tremendous traffic to text based websites which had spread through word of mouth before.

Turns out the micro transaction people probably had the right idea.

The U6 is also historically low though. America is as fully employed as just about anytime in the past 50 years. Using a different metric may have different raw numbers, but the conclusion is the same.

In general, not on this specific topic.

I recall plenty of debate. Maryland voters voted to legalize gambling because politicians said the funds would go to education. It was a ballot initiative that won a majority vote.

But I guess all the states in the union aren't as well governed as Maryland.