Em Adespoton

I’d rephrase that:

“By casting your ballot for Kamala Harris, you are voting AGAINST Vladimir Putin.”

That means the British Indian Ocean Territory will cease to exist, along with the .io domain and countless websites.

What will happen is that the International Standard for Organization (ISO) will remove the country code “IO.” IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) which creates and assigns top-level domains, uses this code to determine which top-level country domains should exist. Once ‘IO’ is removed, IANA will start the process of retiring .io, which involves stopping new registrations and the expiration of existing ‘.io domains.‘

I don’t get this: shouldn’t Mauritius gain ownership of .io? Russia has .su, and it’s been over 30 years since the Soviets existed.

[edit] also, since there’s .whateveryouwant these days, why not just make .io a non-country TLD? That’s how it’s used anyway.

Go into politics — become part of the problem so you can become part of the solution.

And we all get upset.

What makes you think you can’t do anything about it?

Move to a different country?

“Please stop attacking the people who harmed innocent Lebanese people on Lebanese soil without the notification of your government, and who are still lobbing missiles over your border.”

I feel your pain. I have maintainer roles for a few projects where things could be slowed down by a week or more if I didn’t have direct commit access. And I do use that access to make things run faster and smoother, and am able to step in and just get something fixed up and committed while everyone else is asleep. But. For security critical code paths, I’ve come to realize that much like Debian, sometimes slow and secure IS better, even if it doesn’t feel like it in the moment (like when you’re trying to commit and deploy a critical security patch already being exploited in the wild, and NOBODY is around to do the review, or there’s something upstream that needs to be fixed before your job can go out).

They haven’t been removed from the community though — just the maintainers list. Now they need someone else’s review to commit code to the kernel.

Personally, I think even maintainers should be required to have that — you can be the committer for pre-reviewed code from others, but not just be able to check anything you want in, no matter your reputation (even if you’re Linus). That way a security breach is less likely to cause havoc.

Yes; that is the problem.

I’d be interested to know what sort of “you people” you think I am.

The problem is, the only thing worse than tweaking a strategy that’s never worked in the past and expecting change is choosing a new strategy that logically will never work, by design, and expecting change.

Look at history and tell me what was needed to stop the governments of the most powerful nations from supporting genocide overseas.

Or… take a longer view and follow the strategy I outlined.

The Palestine/Israel situation didn’t just start this election cycle; voting third party isn’t going to fix it, or even help the victims at all — in fact, it will likely harm them. But strategically voting over the next four cycles or so could go a long way to improving not just that issue, but many others.

Weird that you think voting third party will accomplish that.

Although I’d argue that now is definitely the time to vote third party locally, and independent for senate.

Once the Big Two lose their dominance in those two areas, it will be time to target congress. Then once that’s done and legislative reform is in place, it will be time to target the executive and judiciary.

I guess they’re not single issue voters then?

So… doomed?

Yeah; my reaction to the headline was “…and good riddance?”

I never signed up for Facebook in the first place because I knew some of the people involved in the original Facebook. I didn’t want them getting their hands on my personal info because I knew what they’d do with it… and they did.

Its main Western rivals like Samsung?

Actually, it may. The US has some odd laws where US companies have to enforce US restrictions globally. However, it wasn’t my understanding that Kaspersky was on any of the lists that would have resulted in this. Possibly it boils down to a Google ToS violation?

I’m sure we’ll be hearing more details this week.

That’s really interesting. I wonder if it’s due to Google being a US company?

I’m confused: Kaspersky just finished transferring its endpoint security software in these regions to a different company’s product via a software update. Kaspersky has sent messages out to customers saying that they are leaving this marketplace.

Given this context, I can see no reason why Google would leave their Android product available when they’re not technically allowed to sell it and Kaspersky has said that they won’t be selling it into these markets going forward. It does, of course, prevent Kaspersky from pulling another bait and switch and “updating” mobile devices to a third party product. That would be the reason for locking out the developer accounts.