Symbian and LiMo were both available at the time. It is hard to say they were good alternatives though. Windows 7 - even with the weight of Microsoft behind it - wasn't able to attract enough hardware manufacturers.
May I politely invite you to fuck off with your racism.
Indigenous? What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Why are you so happy to be racist in public?
Stop getting your news from social media. Come over to London, have a pint in a Desi pub and try telling us that we're living in hell. See how that works out for you.
> Indigenous? What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Why are you so happy to be racist in public?
That's not an argument. Do you think it would be "racist" if Japanese people don't want to be largely replaced in their home country with white or black people? If not, why not?
But, of course, ethnicity doesn't really matter in this context. There have been black people in the UK since at least Tudor times. Read Miranda Kaufmann's excellent book on the subject.
How long does someone have to live here to count, in your expert opinion? The UK invited thousands of people from all over the Empire to fight for us during WW2. They and their descendants are now as British as anyone else here.
What about the descendants of the Huguenots? Do they count as "replacing" or do you think it's OK because of their skin colour?
I'm sure you could prepare almost anything to taste great. You can do whatever you think you'd enjoy. My point isn't to discourage you from doing it. If you want to eat apple stems or orange peels or horse chestnuts, knock yourself out. My point is that it's probably not smart to do so unless you know what you're doing and have a good reason to.
Go down to literally any 2nd hand phone store and buy a refurb. None of your money will go to Google and you'll have your phone at a fraction of the new price.
Literally any? Really? Are you sure you're not looking at this through an Americancentric lens? The Google phone was never offered in my market, so second hand options are simply not available.
I do not believe he is 'literally calling for ethnic cleansing', based on what I've read. But if you would like to make that argument, please enclose 2 quotes from him that you believe support your proposition, with a link to the original source.
I would describe DHH as a narcissist. Normal people who don't have a massive ego and hugely inflated view of themselves don't get involved in these societal conversations in the first place, to even be accused of being a fascist.
"When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation."
The European Union is known for its Schengen Zone, which allows EU citizens to travel between other EU member states freely. However, did you know that until 2025, there were two countries who were full EU member states, that were not a part of the Schengen Zone? [1]
They were Romania and Bulgaria, the two countries where - you guessed it - most of the Romani people, colloquially known as Gypsies, are from. The rest of the EU, for a very long time, denied these countries equal Schengen access precisely because no one else in the EU wanted Gypsies in their countries. Precisely because of the disrespectful behavior they display when they set-up shop somewhere.
DHH did not call for them to be shot, he expressed that he would like to deport homeless vagrants who were not Danish citizens. If vagrancy is a crime, then deporting a criminal is not a controversial stance. It is, in fact, standard operating procedure for any nation-state in the world that can afford to do so.
However, his language and rhetoric to invoke shooting wolves (a dangerous and feral animal) in the same sentence (essentially) as deporting Gypsies is, at a minimum, dangerous and irresponsible as it can encourage vigilantism and civil violence where people can take the law into their own hands. It would have been better if he had moderated his language, however strictly speaking - this does not quality as 'literally calling for ethnic cleansing', especially when in the context of deporting non-citizens of a nation state who are accused of criminal activity.
There is nothing remotely racist or fascist about that. He’s talking about behavior, not race. And deportation is merely a tool that both fascists and non–fascists alike can use. Frankly the historical examples of fascism did very little actual deporting.
> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
How is that, at all, related to Omarchy apart from the racist dog whistles from its founder?
It's like people see a blue t-shirt and say 'look, that t-shirt is rainbow colored'. No, that t-shirt has ONE of the colors of the rainbow, but it's missing red, orange, yellow, green and purple.
Funny you should ask, I just read a blog post that described exactly how one guy’s shitty beliefs are a problem. It was called “Omarchy is a Power Grab” i’m sure you can find a link to it if you look around.
That's great advice to all people who fail to see large hazards fast approaching. Like, say, a fascistic kleptocracy that's quickly forming in a large western country.
I doubt that DHH somehow has an impact or even a say in that future fascist kleptocracy with some barely working linux distro, but if you really think that way and you think these actions do anything to damage it, you're incredibly wrong.
All you do is look like extremist weirdos and make moderates and people who couldn't care less about politics be interested in what they're doing. For every complaint I see about omarchy I see a ton from people that just heard about it and started using it, all after the whole DHH is the devil and omarchy is the fascist distro started, which is ironic and honestly hilarious.
Hyper-politicization of open source outside of its domain has ruined it. This is not a new phenomenon but has certainly increased as fringe politics have gone more mainstream and taken advantage by politicians, content creators and your average power hungry bully who wants to use idiots to obtain easy money and power.
Maybe the solution is in the offline world. A government funded public service announcement of tv/radio/print/busstop ads saying stuff like "never do government stuff not on .gov, never do banking stuff not on .bank". I think that would be highly effective for the sort of people who need the protection here.
It would obviously require banks and gov departments to get their ducks in a row first which is a whole other problem in itself, but it might still turn out to be an economically viable improvement.
Yeah, I totally agree. I think there's no 1-size-fit-all solution. I think the problem should shift onto "how many solutions do we need"?
At least 2 I'd guess: 1 is going to be incomprehensibly hard and painful compared to now, but there will be maybe only a few handfuls per country. Sure you have to sacrifice your first newborn, but it will come with the full weight of government PSAs because lots of normal and vulnerable citizens depend on it.
The other solution matters less so, because it's could all just be optional/nice to have things, and if people want them, they have to accept some amount of risk/competency in exchange for easy of access. The current solution getting only <50% spam/scam seems to be doing better than traditional mediums so is probably fine for that group.
Maybe there's some more measure solutions between the 2 extremes, but I really don't think there can or should be 1 fix for the DNS system given the range of use cases and customers.
Regardless, Dave down at the local is always going to panic click amazaoncom.paercel-delay.info regardless of what the local bus stop ad or government tell him to do. Such a Dave thing to do.
The opposite issue I had was that I already flagged as spam mails with domains that look like this (not using the official domain) only to discover later that it was legitimate when I connected.
I dont see how org.ukpaynatwest-online is any easier to spot as a scam.
Take a look at many of the domains you see in phishing emails / texts. They're all pretty obvious if you spend all day looking at domains and considering their provenance. Most people don't.
I like the idea of highlighting the TLD - but I do wonder if it would just become an expensive boondoggle like EV Certificates.
The author (who is handsome and talented) is based in the UK - so tries hard not to be US centric. Hence the use of €.
As for the contradictions - yes. There's a famous aphorism "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I think it is important to explore a problem and its possible solutions. It allows you to work where the issues are and prevents people saying "why didn't you consider…?".
It was in parentheses, that does usually imply irrelevant sideband information.
Perhaps more importantly, the “handsome and talented” sidebar was actually a tongue in cheek acknowledgment that the author himself was speaking, I suspect, compare the usernames and they match up suspiciously well.
Perhaps they complain because that's literally the only way to get Google to take notice?
Let's be real, AOSP doesn't exist any more. Google have closed down nearly everything. All the development happens in private, you've stopped addressing bugs raised by the public, the source of patches are only infrequently released, device trees are gone.
All the development happens in private, you've stopped addressing bugs raised by the public, the source of patches are only infrequently released, device trees are gone.
To emphasize this point a bit more: only "QPR0" (major release) and QPR3 are released as part of AOSP. QPR1 and QPR3 are not released at all anymore, but contain fixes for vulnerabilities that are not marked high/critical (so don't end up in ASB). It is not clear to me whether OEMs get access to QPR1 and QPR3, but Google are not only witholding features, but also a set of security fixes.
Besides that, they are torpedoing other systems through Play Integrity.
IMO it would be best if AOSP was spun off from Google into its own org that actually cares about developing an open source system for others (both open source systems like GrapheneOS/Lineage and commercial vendors like Samsung) and that would have an attestation system that is open to vendors that have good device security.
I have some experience of dealing with this when working for .gov.uk
A registrar can accept an anonymous payment for taxgovuk.gtld and have it live within seconds. The spam messages go out instantly to the victims.
By the time the certificate is seen on the transparency logs and the takedown request sent, it's too late. The criminals have taken what they need and they don't care that the domain is now blocked or on warning lists.
At the risk of sounding too libertarian - do we want domain registrations to be subject to a 24 hour mandatory wait period to see if there are legitimate objections? Should registrars do strong KYC checks on people? Should certain substrings be banned?
I struggle to think of a reasonable way to prevent this which doesn't also harm legitimate users. I don't know what the calculus is between annoying the lawful and frustrating the lawless.
On the other hand, I struggle to think of a reason how harm could come from delayed activation of a registered public name. Can you describe a use case that cannot be solved by opting for a subdomain of an already-existing domain?
England have just scored the winning goal in the world cup and I want to celebrate by launching my personal tribute on Lionesses.rock
Why shouldn't that go live instantly?
A disgraced pop star has just been found guilty. I couldn't register Bob-The-Builders-Crimes.uk before the verdict and I want to get my story out now.
I've had a brilliant idea for an eCommerce website but it is 1705 on a Friday night and, because no one works weekends, I have to wait until next week before the domain is agreed.
I agree that there's no great harm in having to wait a day, or a week, for registration to complete. But in a world of instant gratification, it feels old fashioned.
None of these require a domain to work. There’s plenty precedent of things taking off without having a domain, eg Wordle, all Neal.fun sites, Hacker News, and I’m probably forgetting a few obvious ones.
I know that “mystupidvibecodedidea.com” is all the rage but nobody cares if that’s instead on yourname.com/mystupidvibecoded idea except you.
Back in the day (~2003) it was popular to get a domain name for every project. Loads of people I knew where holding a domain name for every idea they had. I even had a few (~40). But in like 2008 I think I switched over to using just sub-domains of my primary. If anything took off I could then find and buy the cool name. And if it dies (likely outcome) I've saved $30.
My impression is that one of the social effects of domain names being cheap and easy to get (at least among many vaguely technologist-adjacent cohorts) is that failing to invest in a 2LD for a new thing winds up seen as tacky, sort of an “if you weren't willing to invest enough to put a cover on it then what does that mean for whether it's any good” thing (you could see it as a counterparty good-faith deposit versus attentional costs if you like). In some cases this goes down to the level of individual publications. Additionally the way social technology has wound up around URLs seems to mean that both longer URLs and artificially shortened ones wind up losing secondary reach in unpredictable ways. I'm not that fond of this trend but I can see ways it winds up making sense in context. I don't know how widespread it is.
>A disgraced pop star has just been found guilty. I couldn't register Bob-The-Builders-Crimes.uk before the verdict and I want to get my story out now.
More likely:
Some flavor of shit has hit the fan. I need to register some viable short and to the point domain names to get the word out faster than BigCo or the government and their army of lawyers can buy those domains.
Would we have stuff like DeFlock if there was an objection period?
What about if some advocacy firm was trying to create a website for people harmed by a drug. The drug company would just object to all their attempted registrations and bog them down.
A delay doesn’t even really hurt this use case. The first person to register the domain would still get it, 24 hours later, unless there’s an actual objection.
I think the "actual objection" is the hardest part.
The UK Government might legitimately object to the registration of `dwpgov-uk-payments.pizza` but should they be allowed to object to `dwp-gov-uk-stole-my-payments.fart`?
One might be obviously dodgy, the other is someone ranting about their experience. Do you think Governments should be able to object to domains complaining about them?
I'm not entirely sure. But we have have mechanisms like Google Safe Browsing, and I can imagine that a similar mechanism could be used. Or there could even be a new classification in Safe Browsing and similar databases for newly registered domains that look like they are misleaing, and this could actually be fast enough if there was a 24-hour hold on new domains.
A delay wouldn't change that. You're talking about the difference of the site being up for a half day or not at all, which is admittedly infinity times longer, but not enough to make any sort of difference (as opposed to putting the anti-entrenched interests info up without its own domain name.)
What legitimate users need something provisioned so quickly on no/short notice.
One of those "a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" situations.
There could always be special dispensation for known entities to break the rules, if they've got an existing relationship / agreement (which essentially means they've already done the necessary KYC).
> At the risk of sounding too libertarian - do we want domain registrations to be subject to a 24 hour mandatory wait period to see if there are legitimate objections? Should registrars do strong KYC checks on people? Should certain substrings be banned?
I'd say "legitimate objections" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there and I don't like the idea. Having the time and resources to monitor registrations becomes a barrier and that makes it a time and resource based system. IE: Rich individuals and companies can pay a monitoring service that objects very broadly.
I've always been frustrated by systems like that and it seems like a lot of the tech industry is set up that way. I've had my personal, family name, 25 year old domain put on Google's safe browsing block list and being the collateral damage in a hugely scaled system isn't fun. Spending the time and resources needed to deal with it are far more of a burden for me than for a big company. I was able to get it removed, but why should I be forced to pay for their mistake?
Ultimately though, any system is going to cost money no matter how it's structured. If you're not paying directly, you're spending time or resources of some kind. I'd rather pay directly because it's easier to understand.
I don't think you can build an all or none system for handling abuse because so much of it is subjective. Even using what's legal vs illegal is difficult because a global system is going to have contradictions. Online gambling is a good example. Some countries would want the related domains banned for being illegal while others don't have a problem with it.
Domains are one of the core building blocks that makes a decentralized internet work. Adding strong moderation tools to that is a huge risk because moderation and censorship are closely related. Who determines what's trustworthy or legitimate or abuse or anything else? What happens if a newly appointed authority claims transparency will enable bad actors?
Highly transparent systems with independent trust ranking make the most sense to me. Any solutions need to be opt-in, or, at the very least, opt-out.
reply