marvin-83

Typically, "no politics" ends up being enforced as "no politics that contradict the office norm".

It is clear how this ends up happening. When people express an opinion generally supported in the office, it is unlikely someone will complain. When someone expresses a contrary opinion, they will appear to be the one "making trouble".

yes but large organisations find the middle ground difficult to cultivate.

It requires that people avoid becoming excessively emotionally invested in the discussion; such that disagreements do not negatively impact their working relationships.

Small teams with good temperaments are easily capable of this. Large organisations tend to look for more definitive policies that can be easily laid out and enforced.

if 8chan was cut off because they were subject to extensive network attacks and cloudflare did not see any profit or value in serving them then I am ok with that. I just don't think that's the reason.

I expect that a different site with the same contract and payment terms, subject to the same attacks would have continued to be protected. maybe I'm wrong but it looked like a political decision, not a business decision.

yes, but these are investigated and prosecuted by police, public prosecution services, and courts; not by couriers discontinuing their services.

the difference is their position in the stack.

Cloudflare blocking people that abuse the network is legitimate (e.g. spam, denial-of-service), just like it is legitimate for forum admins to block people that abuse the forum (trolling, explicit posts).

But cloudflare, or any other network infrastructure provider, shouldn't be determining permissible content for websites because they are not hosts/administrators for that content.

It is like a postal service reading your letters and then saying "we don't like what is being said, so you can't send letters anymore." They can and should stop people sending dangerous materials by post, but they should not be determining permissible content of letters.

you're not really engaging with his point. Effectively banning 8chan by removing network protection does not just restrict extremists; it restricts anyone who used that forum.

Ultimately, such matters should be prosecuted by courts. It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network.

Yeah, I think so.

Curation-as-a-service could even become a viable market. It's arguably already happening to a certain extent through various platforms, creators, and aggregators; but it's not really split off as its own service yet.

I think the defensive aspect is underestimated.

I know from personal experience that carving out a clear online domain name is a lot harder with the expansion of tlds.

Also, I expect phishing sites will have an ever easier time registering convincing domains. So we're going to end up relying on browser blacklisting... not exactly an improvement for security.

Probably aws.amazon rather than webservices. They've invested a lot of time branding the acronym AWS, I don't see them rolling that back now.

As for whether they make those the new generic addresses... I'm not sure. I think they are more likely to use the new tld for internal dns and keep their existing public names.

I thought that lapsed domains got their pagerank reset (or significantly reduced). Is that not the case?

I believe he is referring to compiler optimisation which removes wasteful or extraneous operations. I don't write in Java though, so can't comment more than that.

by autopsy? Or is there clear external physiology that indicates the age?

From the study that Marino & Frohoff (2011) cites for orca whale lifespan in the wild:

> Using data from between 1973-4 and 1987, females have a mean life expectancy of 50.2 yr

How is this possible? I don't understand how a 14 year observation window allows someone to observe an average life expectancy of 50 years.

I think that if you spoke with people who voted to leave, rather than relying on the interpretation of media outlets that opposed them, you would find that the decision was much better informed than you believe.

Also consider that people on all sides of large democratic votes have complex motives. It is just as likely that people who voted remain wished to "send a message", or were "tricked" by PR, or "didn't understand" the implications.

This is my point about trying to reinterpret the meaning of a vote after the fact; it is always tainted with the bias of the person doing the interpretation.

I am not aware of any large, let alone national, democratic system that was based-on consensus. It has always been majority decision, with some variation on what constitutes a majority (e.g. simple majority, 2/3 majority, etc).

I agree that the "people's will" talk is quite silly. Democratic support is notoriously fickle and claiming to represent a single coherent national will is disingenuous; but so is trying to reinterpret a vote after the fact.

On matters such as these it is important not to let personal opinion cloud our perception. The brexit vote had a single question on the ballot and resulted in a clear majority (over a million vote difference). Both with this and the Facebook vote, we must be cautious before ascribing ulterior motives to voters.

I would agree that voting results where the outcome was known ahead-of-time should be considered with caution. Such information undoubtedly influences both how votes are cast and who decides to cast a vote.

Such speculation of voting intentions is disingenuous.

To take your example, only people that oppose the result of the Brexit vote suggest that voters didn't really mean what they voted; it's just a way to apply favourable spin to an unfavourable outcome.