krick

You do you, but that is enough of a red flag to actually mention when somebody recommends Dynadot to everyone else without much elaboration.

Also, banks are really different from domain registrars in several important and relevant respects, but, for the record, I don't have to tell it to the banks I use, and if I did, I'd probably be looking for a bank that I don't have to tell it to.

It asks you to choose 4 (four!) "secret questions" as a "security" measure. I decided that keeping your domains with an organization that insists on idiotic practices that are firmly forbidden by every sensible security practices guide (OWASP, NIST 800-63, anything, really) since like 2015 is not a very wise choice.

There are in that very Reddit thread though.

Damn, that's a leet social security number.

Ok, so let's say you are an Orthodox Jew business owner. Can you let your goyim to continue making profit for you on Saturday, or "does that itself take away from the spirit and sanctity of the day" too? I don't see how it's different from the problem at hand.

More seriously, though, thinking about this pretty silly (in my view) question makes me want to talk to some Rabbis to clarify some things. AFAIK, the existence of free will is pretty fundamental to Judaism (unlike Islam or branches of Protestantism), and having pretty materialistic views on the question of free will myself (i.e. it doesn't exist, obviously), I struggle to imagine how the alternative views can survive contemplating if you can let your AI-agent run on Saturdays. I mean, I think I understand how, say, Orthodox Christians can keep these views today, but they don't really have such meticulous legal system built upon purely theological discussions. So, as an Orthodox Christian, even if you fully understand the implications (which, of course, most people don't, but that's besides the point) it isn't really a problem to consciously accept whatever beliefs about free will while still being very materialistic about most practical questions. But since my knowledge of Jewish theology is extremely limited, I have no idea if you even have to have some specific views about determinism for halakha to be self-consistent.

Probably even luminescent paint to be sure it can be seen in the dark. This is even more valuable than a sparkly gemstone, I suppose, that's almost magical!

I wonder what exactly these laws prohibit. Like, does it apply to a fully encrypted cold-copy on Amazon Glacier? If you don't store the encryption key outside of UAE, I'd say this isn't even the same data that gets transferred to the third party, it's just some random blob. But I have no idea if the authorities of that country would agree and if it's even actually enforced for that matter, or if it's one of those laws that actually cause problems only if you follow them.

That is actually surprising to me. Claims like that are pretty common, they make sense and they should be true, so even though I don't really know AWS (/Backblaze/Azure/whatever) redundancy planning in enough detail, I used to trust them. It's really worrying when they outright say it will be ok, and then a week later it turns out to be not ok.

That's very unpleasant to hear. It's sad to be reminded that Rust compiler is not magic and cannot just... do these things somehow. Sure, all abstractions do have some cost, but, man, 17% performance gain by virtue of replacing enum with this monstrosity? That's very annoying.

I shouldn't be surprised, given I saw plenty of nicely functioning legacy codebases, but still, somehow this isn't the news I was expecting to hear in 2026.

Obviously it's bad and we can all say "fuck Microsoft" once more, but "we" probably don't use Windows anyway, right? I have no idea, really, but if you willingly use closed-source spyware that is notorious (for AT LEAST 15 years) for all kinds of invasive telemetry it forces upon you, you probably wouldn't find this new piece of information concerning anyway.

And ironically, I think that this one is kinda fair. I mean, you specifically asked your software to generate whatever pseudo-random bytes it wishes to loosely based on some text prompt. It did that. Now, apparently, these pseudo-random bytes turn out to be personally identifiable. So what? I suppose they didn't claim their PRNG to be cryptography-grade. They could even make it seem like an accident, should they be bothered to. Make it way less obvious.

Now if it would insert watermarks on save (like printers do), that would be really outrageous. But when you trust software to produce "whatever", you probably shouldn't be really mad about it doing anything more than you asked to.

I still just use Greasemonkey. What is even the point of both successors on Firefox?

Clearly you have no idea how the head of EC is chosen. Because of the two only Trump was actually elected by the people.

Yep, that's right.

Actually, they do, sort of. At least, if you use GLSL shaders. I remember some demo project using it in a way that made it appear that the website "sees" another window with the same website, which blew my mind when I saw it first. Cannot recall the name or anything else to locate it.