dc396

Mostly agreed. In a previous life, I used to write code, then got Peter Principled upwards to the point where I "trusted" the engineers under me to do their job. Did I understand all the code my team wrote? Of course not. Even if I wanted to review all the code written by 20+ developers to the point where I could stay I understood it, there simply wasn't enough hours in the day to do so.

I figure what is happening is (human) software engineering as a discipline, at least on large scale projects, is rapidly and irreversibly mutating to software project management. But instead of managing teams of people, you're managing teams of agents. Where I disagree with your comment is in the assertion that everyone "can move one level up the system hierarchy." Some folks can't, so they'll stagnate. Welcome to the Peter Principle World.

Elections have consequences. I doubt anyone rational would have thought it would be a useful expenditure of time to get into this particular pissing match, but here we are. Maybe in the next presidential election the 87 million eligible voters who chose not to vote in 2024 might choose to participate.

This is a troll, right?

This would argue that change of ownership of a domain should be treated equivalently to creation of a domain. Of course, given GDPR (or rather how the registrars have chosen to interpret GDPR to reduce their legal liability risk), ownership information is now unavailable, so all you have to go on is the registration modification timestamp. Unfortunate.

I'm curious: can anyone provide an interpretation in which this agreement does not boil down to surrender by the US?

California has 11x the population of Utah, with California having around 250 people per square mile and Utah having 40 people per square mile. This probably plays more into the fire risk than the number of pine trees.

> And why is California uniquely fire prone?

Combination of CA's climate (mediterranean), which leads to hot/dry summers exacerbated by global warming, natural ecology that evolved to handle that climate and fires (e.g., lodgepole pines can't reproduce unless a fire cracks open pine cones to release seeds into ash beds), the topology that funnels winds off the deserts, and probably most importantly, people, either because of building in places that have lots of fires or because they cause the fires directly or indirectly (transmission lines not buried, lack of control fires, arson, etc.)

Science? Maybe in an ideal world. However, how science actually gets done has always been at the mercy of social, cultural, institutional, and/or economic pressures.

Congress neutered itself, largely because it has been politically less risky to let the Executive branch do whatever they want, then either cheer it on or rage against it depending on party and what drives donations so congress members can get reelected.

The system is fundamentally broken.

No. It's been a while, but I believe if you use multiple TXTs, resolvers can reorder them as they see fit. For example,

label IN TXT "foo " IN TXT "bar " IN TXT "baz"

You can have any number of TXT RRs with a label, allowing up to 65,280 bytes. However, resolvers can reorder those 3 TXT RRs.

If you put the text strings in quotes in a single TXT RR, e.g.:

label IN TXT "foo " "bar " "baz"

You'll get "foo bar baz" and each of the strings can be up to 255 bytes. I think (but I'm too lazy to verify) that the maximum length of a concatenated string is implementation dependent.

"The length limit of a DNS TXT record is 255 characters."

Nope. That's the maximum length of a TXT record string. TXT record strings with the same owner name get concatenated together. The maximum for a TXT record is 65,280 octets (which may or may not translate into characters depending on encoding).

Also, you probably want to think about the implications of caching and TTL.

Seems the Trump administration is trying to use 1984 as a how-to:

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.”