Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.io considered harmful

beep.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 254 posts

Re: .io considered harmful

#161

Post by vidarh »

burke wrote: post #148
gowld wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal" People can't be legally bought and sold.

Legality is a concept defined by the governments doing the things. It's funny to see people react to something they perceive as immoral and just claim it's illegal. I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.

However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 and the ICK has in recent years come to the same conclusion, so in this case there is actual evidence to support that it was illegal.

Re: .io considered harmful

#162

Post by catchnear4321 »

angra_mainyu wrote: post #118
evantbyrne wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The invocation of "colonialism" in tech discussions tends to be a pretty reliable indication that what follows will be gibberish.

I was hoping we could keep our zealousness to tabs vs spaces, 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 8 indentation levels, etc.

that is indeed all considerably superfluous and a distraction from the one true law.

the first element of an array is at index zero. only a filthy heathen starts at one. to add a one to the beginning is arrogance, the mark of a human needing to see itself everywhere, while zero is pure, a beginning.

in before some one-head leaves a half-baked comment about why it makes more sense for the first element to start with one because one and first are same but different. so childish.

Re: .io considered harmful

#163

Post by lxgr »

Fnoord wrote: post #149
ozyschmozy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with .eu domains?

Nothing, but Brits had to quit their .eu domains due to Brexit. Which seems reasonable to me. Of course, Brexit wasn't; it was manipulated by the Russians.

Wow, TIL .eu had a residency/domicile requirement! That indeed disqualifies it for many use cases.

Re: .io considered harmful

#164

Post by Hizonner »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #91
dijit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtue signaling is the expression of a conspicuous, self-righteous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character. It doesn't actually have to be virtuous, it only needs to signal virtue to others. Virtue signalling usually does not genuinely solve anything anyway it's merely supposed to impress upon you that "this person is good", that's the entire goal. Whether it's meaningful or not doesn't enter…

Mind you, plenty of people blithely dismiss any stated belief that they disagree with as "virtue signalling." Basically implying that their opinions are so objectively correct that no one could sincerely disagree, only fake it to appeal to malcontents, who are presumably also faking it.

That's too charitable. People's usual motivation to complain about "virtue signaling" is that they personally are amoral pieces of garbage, and would prefer that other people not punish amoral-piece-of-garbageness in any way, because they would find that inconvenient.

Re: .io considered harmful

#165

Post by teddyh »

oooyay wrote: post #126
teddyh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ordering from your own country maybe ups the ante from a civil court perspective if you have money to sue a registrar and the time to go to court for it. Yes, that’s my point. If your local government and associated court system is completely unworkable for you (corruption, onerous fees, etc.), then some other TLD might be preferable. But a local citizen will almost always have a large advantage in a dispute with s…

That was a point, but your first point was that domains are secure sources of web identity. That's what I disagreed with. I do agree that if your civil courts are knowledgeable you at least have some defense, but domains are more rent and less property which makes them an insecure form of identity imo.

You might own your house, but if you stop paying taxes, you will, somehow, lose ownership of it. The same thing applies here.

There is no such thing as absolute property. Legal entities can confiscate and expropriate whatever they think they should, regardless of ownership. Everything is fluid and exists on sufferance. If you want absolute irrevocable control, use a darknet, like .onion.

Re: .io considered harmful

#166

Post by vidarh »

teddyh wrote: post #2

I would go further and say this: Never treat foreign ccTLD’s (two-letter domains) as anything you can just register and use a domain in. You should only ever use a ccTLD of your own country or region you actually have your main presence in. Your domain name is often your most secure key to your entire online identity, and you want that to be on as a secure legal footing as possible. Older discussion here: https://new…

24 years ago, my then startup bought about 60,000 domain names. For many.of the TLDs in question it represented the largest chunk of income they'd had. We had about $1m in funding at that stage.

Put another way: Many of these TLDs bring in little enough that it'd likely take a really small funding round to go to some of these registries and make them a nice offer to tighten rules so that e.g. all registrants outside the country needs a licensed representative in the country, and convince them to license only you.

Price by revenue or number of employees or something and give kickbacks to the right people.

Re: .io considered harmful

#167

Post by vidarh »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #64
teddyh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to consider is to have your publicly-visible web sites on vanity domain/domains, but all your server infrastructure on a domain in your local stable ccTLD.

Why does it even matter what domain your servers use internally? Most servers I've ever seen were actually using raw IPs, and the few exceptions used an internal DNS system that couldn't have cared less what the internet thought their domain was.

Not internally, but API endpoints for customers.

Re: .io considered harmful

#168

Post by dijit »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #143
evantbyrne wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The invocation of "colonialism" in tech discussions tends to be a pretty reliable indication that what follows will be gibberish.

I'm just happy they are talking about it all! It's good to learn about things outside your main domain, especially with something like world history/geopolitics. Can you give examples of the gibberish? Genuinely fascinated to know what you are referring to. This kind of stuff in particular can be pretty disheartening to learn about in general, and I find misinformation/pathos around it can often come from resistance…

Wait until you learn that there's no such thing as ethical consumption of anything under capitalism.

Re: .io considered harmful

#169

Post by teddyh »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #151
teddyh wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that. What happens when there’s a dispute with a Colombian entity who wants your domain? Who do you think will have the advantage? Would you trust the Colombian registry and courts to favor you?

They could take the dispute to the UN internet court for domain names, whatever it's called. I can't see why that would apply only to the TLDs that existed 20 years ago.

You’re thinking of WIPO, perhaps? IIUC, they can’t interfere in the affairs of a ccTLD registry unless invited to do so. So if the Colombian authorities says you lose your domain to some local Colombian outfit, then you lose.

Re: .io considered harmful

#170

Post by wavemode »

teddyh wrote: post #74
preommr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should only ever use a ccTLD of your own country or region you actually have your main presence in. Don't do this either. Countries have rules and regulations around who can own certain domains. It's really annoying when there's a million problems to fix and a business restructure potentially affects whether there even has to be a conversation on if it affects the use of a domain name.

Heaven forbid a tech company should be forced to obey applicable laws and regulations. Those strict regulations are part of your brand ; if you register, say, a .de domain, a user can be reasonably sure that you’re not some weird fly-by night operation whose real company name is something else entirely. This is an asset for you.

As someone who owns a .de domain (for random reasons) and has never even been to Germany, I would argue "reasonably sure" should be more like "hopeful" ...
Post reply on HN