postquantumfax

How long are those conversations between team designer and QA? How many seemingly trivial details have to be discussed over and over because addressing one of them creates an inconsistency in the others? I think this is the debt that can usually be estimated by lines of code.

He spent one day on a project at some point.. I spent one week on a project when it was new and I wouldn't judge it today using that week.

60000 is near the theoretical max of a 5 tupple with all but the client port being fixed. If you are going to test with this many connections per client you are hopefully using multiple IPs per client or multiple server IPs.

This isn't a red herring at all. This is DNS resolution and client PKIX implementation. You could fix your whole network to not import anything from outside, ban all BYOD, etc, or you could fire ICANN clowns who think they need to make changes to the reserved list because, why? Money, corruption, self importance?

HN is full of people from SaaS startups who in essence want to buy the perfect 900 number. But DNS and delegation goes far deeper than selling one name for $20 and going to other $20 names to store your code and email at other SaaS providers.

With rigorous ID requirements, that restriction can be circumvented easily.

Choosing the slightly less probable output is changing the quality of the output if it weren't LLMs wouldn't work by processing a large amount of data to get these probabilities as accurate as possible.

There's no leak being discussed. Everyone in the world sets resolving and it is what it is with the current TLDs when ICANN needs more coke money they possibly break every node in the world and a distributed group of thousands has to look if something bad happened.

There is the argument that ICANN should no longer be consulted ever by nodes of consequence but that is an argument that they have failed 100% in their responsibilities.

If you don't care at all about zone delegation and global resolution then you obviously don't have an opinion on how to evaluate ICANNs stewardship of global domain delegation.

We have run out if IPv4 addresses but there is NAT is not a satisfying answer to start. But we have let ICANN polute naming so let's implement shadow naming everywhere is an even less satisfactory answer.

I've done plenty of interesting things but a distributed correction attempt for ICANN's incompetence is never going to be adequate. You can read their own work on gTLDs in the past to know they understand this.

If icann sells www as a tld domain then your use of www as a machine name you may refer to unqualified is a risk because virtually every piece of software in the world respects public issuance until you delete it all if you can.

The DNS naming confusion was largely dealt with by having a small number of TLDs and rarely referring to complex things like partially specified subdomains, but every once in a while a fool named their machine com, org, or net. (Though these as subdomains were far more toxic.)

Huh? In a large company you can deliver everything you are allowed to deliver and more and not make impacts or not get credit for them that translates to the salary any new hire gets when there is a supply gap.

resolv.conf-> search

If you are not a consumer on an ISP emulating dialup it is quite likely that a popular name in a naming convention I.e. 'mercury' resolves to something for you and something for someone at a different firm (mercury.intranet.[firm].not-so-stupid-tld). A cert is possibly not a fully qualified one so when ICANN gives away mercury you need to append .asshat to everything ICANN names.

(Two firms have an unambiguous situation because they don't trust each others private roots but they both trust a cert issued for the public trust as a fqdn which is why TLDs expanding is a form of theft/breakage against every intranet..)

DNS allows search so we really should have started rejecting everything that isn't qualified with an end dot as punishment to ICANN.. Instead random common names might be treated differently on every network to make sure these people can't issue certs that will be trusted for them in your own network, etc.

Now prioratizing unambiguos naming would be somewhat acceptable if ICANN was tacobell and just a steward of naming on the side.