akerl_

> Who do I call if I think Flock is stalking me

Your local representative who signed a contract with Flock to install and operate the cameras?

At a certain scale, the relative complexity (both in terms of inventory management and dealing with upgrade requests / approvals / etc) tends itself towards picking a baseline spec that can work for the overwhelming majority of your fleet.

The present is built mostly on layers of the long-past :)

It makes me think of when Arch merged /usr/bin and sbin with /bin and sbin. Having them split made sense in a ton of scenarios that used to be very common, but increasingly the split was vestigial for most users.

I’d imagine they’re live updating the library paths in the binary headers, so anything shorter or equal to what they’re using is a simple rewrite, but longer is more complex.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

I deserve to be called out just the same if I’m wrapping good points with “Drivel. Absolute piffle.” and “Maybe you are young and inexperienced”.

You’ve tainted your otherwise interesting comment pretty intensely by mixing in this level of condescension and hostility.

This would be way easier to clarify if you’d provided context on which comments you were looking at.

The conspiracy voice in me thought maybe you know this is a benign thing and you’re just hunting for something to be outraged about.

It seems way more plausible to do detection and blocking separately from registration. Domain registration is when you have the least information about intent; the author acknowledges this in their example of hiding malicious content in a subdomain.

There are DNS providers whose resolvers will block newly registered domains or domains whose content has been identified as fishy (or whose content hasn’t yet been assessed).

I’d like a world where scammers are stopped after they lock in a visible name and spend money.

> You cannot choose which (in many cases also state controlled) web PKI certificate authority can sign certificates for your domain name.

Are there any remaining CAs in browser root stores that don’t enforce CAA record validation?

Have you compared against adding a JavaScript requirement with no proof of work?

This happened to come up in a podcast I was listening to yesterday. An author was describing visiting their publisher’s warehouse to sign books and seeing their conveyor belt for determining the fate of books. The books get scanned and the publisher’s algorithm decides if it’s worth storing or not. If it’s not, the belt dumps it into the giant ripping and mulching machine.

It feels odd to nitpick the terminology of somebody who is agreeing with your concern.

I can't speak for other people, but I commented here because the person I replied to shared their project and then in response to concerns about it copying other people's content, tried to position that first as being OK because they'd offer opt-out, and then said that was viable because if it were opt-in the site wouldn't be possible.

Except this isn't indexing, this is creating a replacement frontend.

> There's also the argument that if something isn't forbidden, it should be allowed

That's a really fun legal argument but a pretty irrelevant ethical one.

Why does the site need to be possible?

Oh. Because they often aren’t controllable.

Are you asking why emotions aren't logical?

That was the joke, yes.

"can't" here isn't really the right word. They obviously could, in the same way that a company making $4.5 million could.

But there's a near infinite number of things they could do; they're constantly choosing which to actually do.

AI has made my life more productive and I could use the time it's saved me to go for a run, but here I am.

I guess we’ll have to see how this affects the results in 2026’s global IQ census.

musl has no problem building and using shared libraries.

What you can't do is build something statically with musl and then reliably dlopen shared libraries built with glibc.

Wanted to thank you for the highly informative breakdown, especially given we got here by me making the mistake of not pulling up the underlying complaint before commenting.

Edited my earlier comment to point here. Is your assessment that CFTC is pulling the broader impact fully out of the air, or are likely to try to spin the coverage of events in New York for participants outside of New York as counting as interstate commerce?

The "order" there is effectively a reset button to the TRO. Its function is to say "you can ignore the TRO and continue business as usual". It doesn't force Kalshi to continue operating if they had their own reasons for pausing operations.

Do you have a source for that? From the release:

> In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.

It's not an order to Kalshi to continue operations. They overrode the TRO from the state court. The target of the order is the state court / executive, essentially saying "You cannot halt Kalshi's operations via the TRO".

Yea; interstate commerce being the domain of the federal government is one of the more tested legal concepts we have here.

I (unfortunately) think that the NY AG screwed up our opportunity to press that question by aiming nationally. The CFTC got to skip that and just shut down the national TRO.

I'd love to see another state push for a state-specific restriction and see how that plays out.

Not seeing that here; is your connection being MITM'd?

Issuer I'm seeing is Sectigo Public Server Authentication CA OV R36.

Avast is nominally an AV/VPN company; are you running their tooling on your machine?

EDIT: see DannyBee's comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 ). It does look like the CFTC has extrapolated the "nationwide" out of either some novel interpretation of the filing or just entirely fabricated it as their justification for their action.

I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release.

The article presents the sequence of events as:

1. The State of NY files a lawsuit against Kalshi under the theory that it can be regulated by state gambling laws.

2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY.

3. Kalshi reaches out to the CFTC to claim that NY doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

4. The CFTC agrees and uses their authority to override the TRO.

That seems pretty aligned with how interstate commerce is regulated and managed in the US.