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

The Dark side of .io TLD

thedarksideof.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#71

Post by seszett »

kenrick95 wrote: post #54
worklogin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not ironic at all. It's not asking people to stop using .io. It's asking people using .io to support a fund that supposedly helps the cause of natives of the island. Did you read the link?

Yup I've read. By using .io TLD, they are submitting to the UK government on what should be theirs. It may be like rebels claiming a territorial independence but then still pay taxes to the government for that particular territory.

Most non-violent independentists in western countries pay taxes. Actually, even most violent independentists pay taxes as well so they can conduct their activities without attracting attention from the government.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#72

Post by Igglyboo »

charlesnw wrote: post #70
Igglyboo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not even remotely the same thing. There is no .io sponsored hitsquad that is going to murder you in an alley for dissent, literally nothing will happen from this.

How do you know? :) (I'm kidding of course....)

What a dumb joke, reminds me of that stupid Candlejack meme.

We get it guys, he comes and takes you while you're typing. Enough is e

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#73

Post by pc2g4d »

roarkjs wrote: post #57
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utilitarian arguments lead you strange places. You can end up eating children or burning hobos for fuel. Be very careful.

All arguments can lean you strange places. They're inconsequential if they don't. Luckily, the modern pragmatist is also socially aware.

You seem to be judging the worth of an argument by the "strangeness" of its implications. That's a curious standard.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#74

Post by eyko »

antsar wrote: post #56
cesarbs wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that line of reasoning, I should be legally allowed to invade my unarmed neighbor's house, kick him out and claim it for myself.

Your unarmed neighbor's house happens to be on the land of an existing nation , so you would have to deal with their military before claiming rights to said house.

Refer to xtrumanx's comment above.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#75

Post by richardbrevig »

mortehu wrote: post #59
MichaelGG wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this work well? A friend did that for his company and it was a real pain to explain that the last two letters of a full word have a dot first. Ended up getting the .com. I've got ci.al (so.ci.al, fa.ci.al, etc), I think, but trying to tell someone that over voice seems... problematic.

Usually startups using this kind of domain end up moving to .com once they get funded. I do data mining for a VC, and see this all the time.

Off topic, but I'm curious what kind of data mining the VC has you doing.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#76

Post by voteforchange »

pc2g4d wrote: post #73
roarkjs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All arguments can lean you strange places. They're inconsequential if they don't. Luckily, the modern pragmatist is also socially aware.

You seem to be judging the worth of an argument by the "strangeness" of its implications. That's a curious standard.

I think we would all agree that persuasiveness is an axis upon which to judge arguments. "Strangeness" is far out there on the persuasive axis.

Maybe so far out there that Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson are arguing in the other room... but its on the axis somewhere.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#77

Post by wpietri »

shawn-furyan wrote: post #47
wpietri wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very uncomfortable with this line of argument: > However there are urban restructuring projects every day in western countries that displace more people without proper compensation than this incident. I suspect it's factually untrue, but I'm more concerned with the moral implication that if we can find a wrong Y that is worse than wrong X, we shouldn't care about X. There is a legitimate version of the argument,…

Disclaimer: read the note at the end. > But our ability to recognize and acknowledge wrongs is not a limited resource. I just happen to be re-reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow at the moment, so this is very fresh on my mind. In fact, this does seem to be a limited resource, and the bias that overwhelming the resource creates is called the availability bias. Essentially, in cases where the media covers…

Thanks for the clarity. By saying "recognize and acknowledge wrongs" I am specifically excluding action, so yes, you're talking about something else.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#78

Post by antsar »

eyko wrote: post #74
antsar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your unarmed neighbor's house happens to be on the land of an existing nation , so you would have to deal with their military before claiming rights to said house.

Refer to xtrumanx's comment above.

The one about Iceland, Costa Rica and Mauritius? Certainly those countries have allies who would come to their aid if their land was being invaded by foreigners. I'm not claiming that every nation has their own military, just that they must be prepared to defend their interests in one way or another.

The question of "legally" invading someone's house is odd anyway, because legality implies some authority having deemed it appropriate. In the case of a neighbor's house, it is the government of the country containing the house. I can't think of an entity that establishes the "legal" way of creating/invading a country.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#79

Post by JoeAltmaier »

antsar wrote: post #78
eyko wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refer to xtrumanx's comment above.

The one about Iceland, Costa Rica and Mauritius? Certainly those countries have allies who would come to their aid if their land was being invaded by foreigners. I'm not claiming that every nation has their own military, just that they must be prepared to defend their interests in one way or another. The question of "legally" invading someone's house is odd anyway, because legality implies some authority having deeme…

Its exists, and has something to do with who 'recognizes' a country's claim to exist. There's a cool case in Australia where a guy with a large ranch wrote a letter to the territorial governor, styling himself as the leader of his fictitious nation. The governor responded in kind, maybe tongue in cheek, but using the same title. That meant, as Queen's representative, that the Queen had recognized him. Now he has a post office, currency, stamps etc, and Australia has to deal with him on that basis.

Re: The Dark side of .io TLD

#80

Post by cesarbs »

antsar wrote: post #78
eyko wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refer to xtrumanx's comment above.

The one about Iceland, Costa Rica and Mauritius? Certainly those countries have allies who would come to their aid if their land was being invaded by foreigners. I'm not claiming that every nation has their own military, just that they must be prepared to defend their interests in one way or another. The question of "legally" invading someone's house is odd anyway, because legality implies some authority having deeme…

I was trying to make an analogy. JoeAltmaier's comment implies that it's justifiable for a nation to invade another and kick them out if the latter does not have a military, because it's not really a nation (by his definition). So my analogy meant that by that line of reasoning an unarmed neighbor has no "household" and it should be no problem if someone armed invades it and kicks the family out.

Of course this is all messed up. There's no reason a nation shouldn't be considered a nation just because it doesn't have a military.

Post reply on HN