I’m confused about what “quality domains” means here. I’d honestly never heard of the `.ong` TLD, it seems intended for non-governmental organization. If you’re going to sell subdomains as “quality”, why not get a `.com`?
>The mission and purpose of the .NGO and .ONG top level domain (“TLDs”) is to serve the global Non-Governmental Organization (“NGO”) Community by supplying it with exclusive TLDs that will offer NGOs and associations of NGOs differentiated and verified online identities.
"The PIR simultaneously applied for the top-level domain .ong, which is a similarly recognisable initialism for "organisation non gouvernementale" in French, and equivalent terms in many other Romance languages such as Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian." [1]
Oh, now you got me started aswell. There are so many good ones.
k.ong - cool word, don't know what it would be for. Maybe the home of the mascot of the K language (I don't think K has a mascot from what I know but they should have one).
not associated with spam yet.
Another TLD for a target audience that will never use the TLD because of it's obscurity so it will only be used by people looking for the cheapest domain to spam and scam.
“Customer consent” as in, accepting the TOS by continuing to use the product? Have some respect for the intelligence of your users. If you’re playing dirty lawyerball in HN comments you can’t be trusted to act in good faith.
Say more things. Are you suggesting that by “customer consent”, they mean the consent of someone other than those of us paying for zoom? That makes no sense, and is not supported by the use of “customer” in their TOS.
No. I'm saying "you" are the person in the Zoom call and who agreed to the Terms of Service when you installed the software, but the "customer" is the Zoom account owner, and these are usually not the same person.
Most people in Zoom calls at any moment are in calls where they are not the customer for that call. I would guess most Zoom users have never been customers in that sense, as in they never initiate calls and may not have an account.
Sure, and I think all-party consent should be required if a call has any guests. My point was much shallower—just that OP/Zoom is using language that suggests “customer consent” is some separate thing they would ask for, when in fact using the software (accepting the TOS) is that consent.
Intellectual property: it represents what kinds of data you maintain, their naming, and their relation. That’s valuable on its own and also points to what your software does.
Security: well, see above—knowing what data is stored determines your value as a target.
Now is it the _best_ way to target an adversary? Probably not.
Autonomous vehicles should be required to have a “kill zone”: a little square—away from any potential passengers—that cops can shoot to disable the vehicle entirely. If it were a human driving into a crime scene they wouldn’t hesitate, how come when it’s a driverless car all they can say is “oh, hey, stop… what should we do here?”
Sure it’s extreme, but I’d argue the “terrible terrible” idea is allowing the tyranny of beta software to run roughshod on the road, while the humans have to cope
That’s a pretty small view of “tech”. Development of repeatable agricultural practices for predictable yield is absolutely a technological accomplishment (and not just because there were machines involved)
