I think you may have missed my point.

.gov is not the same as .gov.us (in this example, .gov is not the tld, .us is) Tlds like .io belong to countries, there is no going back to .gov or .com because countries outside of the US never just used .gov or .com.

To add a bit of context:

https://www.parliament.uk/ https://www.parliament.lk/

How do you reconcile both of these websites having .gov? You can’t, you either need second level domains (.gov.uk,.gov.ik) or you would need one of them to change their name (parliamentsrilanka.gov)

.gov needs to be differentiated, and you need all of these country TLDs for that.

You could create your own DNS server with its own routes and registrars.

If you got enough people to use your DNS network you could create your own registrars and your own rules.

Users would need to switch to your DNS, but otherwise there isn’t anything about how the Internet works that requires you to use the big dog DNS

Who gets .gov? The US?

Other countries never used just .gov or just .com.

Damn, you just SLAMMED me.

Yes, honestly the fact that ‘youtube music’ is literally just a different frontend for YouTube drives me nuts, it goes both ways, the YouTube app for TV doesn’t have proper features either, it’s unclear if you are getting the music or video version and the most egregious of them all imo, on the TV app, you can’t freaking browse for a different song while music is playing, you have to stop the song to go to the search bar.

They don’t convey the same information.

Infinity isn’t really an amount of something.

With docker it’s quite easy (assuming you are familiar with docker)

But docker / containerization is a skill that becomes really really helpful to learn if you are interested in this type of thing.

That’s possible though, if there are some really bad drivers screwing the average.

Edit: it’s probably even true in this case, it just depends on how you define ‘good’. For example if you define it by getting tickets, only 36% of drivers are issued tickets. The average number of tickets issued is > 0 but the majority of drivers aren’t issued tickets, the average is skewed, because most drivers are at 0.

Yes, general investing is not zero sum, however many methods of advanced trading are. Options trading, which is prominent and easy to access on Robinhood, is much closer to gambling (and is treated that way by many users) and is zero sum.

Most active trading strategies require successfully arbitraging, or extracting inefficiencies out of the market, and you can’t do either of those things without someone else losing money.

Passive investment is investing in the companies that underlay the market, active trading is extracting value out of the market itself.

I got downvoted for this before, but, when you sublet your property like this, you take on an inherent risk. This isn’t any different to a bad tenant, or an investment not panning out.

Any business who accepted these red boxes should have either a) established contingency with Redbox themselves or, failing that, b) established a contingency through their own means by keeping liquidity to handle disposal of the machine (or something like insurance)

Don’t feel sorry for these businesses, they took a calculated risk, likely made lots of money over the last decade, and now are faced with potentially needing to use some of that revenue to dispose of the machines. Any normal business keeps assets and liquidity available to cover expenses of doing business, the same way a landlord needs to use some rent money to clean up after a bad tenant, it’s part of their business model. If a business thought these machines would just live there forever and magically go away when they aren’t making money anymore, that’s their fault.

I assume business would insure against scenarios like this, whether that’s through securing cash as they suggested or if that isn’t an option (which seems to be the reality of the situation) through things like, escrow accounts, insurance, and cash on hand.

You say the businesses wouldn’t just ‘throw away money’ yet here we are, the businesses, by not ‘throwing away money’ are stuck with these machines to deal with.

I understand that the person was saying that the business should have collected a deposit, but they didn’t, so my question is, why are these businesses caught out by this? Why didn’t they prepare for the risk they assumed by subletting their property, if they didn’t collect a deposit, they should have sequestered some cash to handle this scenario.

No, but any smart business would retain some of the revenue they got from the red box for scenarios where they may have to deal with shit they didn’t expect.

In other words, the revenue they gained from having a red box on their property for 10 years probably more than covers the insurance claim they can file to get it taken care of.

Did the stores not profit off of the machines being there for all of these years?

I can’t imagine redbox wasn’t paying these stores some kind of rent or commission, otherwise why would the store let them just post up their business on their property?

This has already happened with federated services (XMPP)

It’s not a conspiracy, there is proven history of EEE techniques being successfully used to capture an audience and then destroy the adoption of the protocol.

Or horror movie fans

I think, because most people who are actually relying on Adobe products (e.g. making money with them) are making way more than it costs (by several orders of magnitude) so they let themselves get slowly boiled because they still make money hand over fist.

Everytime there is a price increase, the discussion becomes: do we retrain x people, costing us y per person and reducing productivity for z months, or do we just take the L and pay a flat percent increase per seat and maintain productivity. The choice is almost always the second one because it’s hard to predict how prices will increase in the future and the costs of retraining your staff.

The people not making money have no resources to stand up to Adobe, so they make noise because it’s all they can do. Adobe ignores them because they don’t generate a significant portion of their revenue.

If you are an employee for a company using Adobe products, it’s likely you don’t even care and you may not even be aware of the pricing scheme your company is following.

What? I think you maybe just don’t know what purpose secure boot serves.

It’s not a tool to vendor lock computers, it’s a tool to establish a chain of trust to protect the boot process by only allowing cryptographically signed images from executing. Anyone can sign things for secure boot by simply creating an x509 certificate and importing it. If vendors wanted to prevent you from running a different operating system, they would just lock it down completely as is done in many devices like mobile phones and proprietary electronics.

Secure boot means that only the intended bootloader runs, it can be any one, but it just needs to be the intended one.

Secure boot works with Linux.

I think any unknown phrase and method to install an app will be scary to a person who is that unknowledgeable about it. At that point there isn’t any phrase that you could use that wouldn’t sound sketchy to them, it isn’t the phrase that is the problem, it’s the fact that it’s unknown and the process is scary.

The people you are describing would still be skeptical even if you explained it to them (and they should be, since they likely don’t have the knowledge or resources to properly vet an application from an unknown source)

Sideloading is a term that’s been around for decades, it’s not some made up word by tech giants to make people scared of installing apps.

The term originates from a designation for transferring data between physical devices and was slowly adopted (because language is fluid) to its current definition (by people on forums like xda).

This isn’t some conspiracy and Google and apple don’t need to use coded language to prevent you from side loading, apple for example just outwardly and bluntly forbids it.