6
APXKnight 6 points ago +6 / -0

I believe they’re asking because nginx’s author is Russian, and the business originated from there, but so many use nginx, and it’s open source, I’d be surprised if there’s any reason not to trust it.

26
APXKnight 26 points ago +28 / -2

Larger sites don’t work like your consumer grade web hosting, where owning the domain == owning the hosting entirely. Bigger sites separate the domain, DNS and the infrastructure into separate bits. He only owned the domain registration, which allows him to change where the domain’s DNS is located, but doesn’t give access to the servers.

1
APXKnight 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m guessing the person in question didn’t have control of the infrastructure, just the domain. .win almost certainly isn’t like a domain on shared hosting, where that gives you control of everything.

4
APXKnight 4 points ago +4 / -0

EAS participants include "radio and TV broadcasters, cable TV, wireless cable systems, satellite and wireline operators". They're basically being reminded what the regs say, which includes among other things that they have to carry national alerts.

Cellular companies I don't think are actually technically EAS participants, as wireless emergency alerts are a separate system. The EAS has 0 mechanism to activate the WEA - it's activated via IPAWS. The EAS is actually mostly activated via IPAWS now a days too, though the daisy chain over the air method is still in place for obvious reasons.

With all that, this could just be a regular reminder. But the timing is interesting.

4
APXKnight 4 points ago +5 / -1

I'm not getting my hopes up with any of this stuff, but I don't see any such reminder in the FCC's headlines in the past couple years. It's possible they did send out such a reminder and just didn't post it there, I guess.

17
APXKnight 17 points ago +18 / -1

I knew as soon as the tweets were deleted that all the tech companies would follow suit and start disabling whatever accounts they can control. They've been itching to do this all along, but yesterday's events and everyone calling this "insurrection" gave them the justification needed.

2
APXKnight 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's so clear, honestly. They posted a video on Twitter of one of the offices that really didn't look damaged or anything, just had a bunch of papers all over the ground, and acted like it was the worst fucking thing they saw. Meanwhile, BLM literally burned down buildings, and they acted like it was such a great thing. Give me a break.

2
APXKnight 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have the social media accounts for an organization I work with in my phone and you can be damn sure anytime I go to send a tweet on my personal account, I double check which account I’m sending from.

Typical liberal idiots working in social media can’t even be bothered to do their due diligence with a huge corporation’s social media in their phone.

by Krunchi
6
APXKnight 6 points ago +6 / -0

Exactly, I think many of us were supporting back the blue in opposition of the overwhelming call for abolishing police, not realizing that we were raising our own expectations that all police would support us. It’s always been certain departments have good leadership and others don’t, and that certain departments would support the common sense law enforcement, and others would take it to the extreme.

by Krunchi
13
APXKnight 13 points ago +13 / -0

Yeah, I’ll back my local Sheriff’s office and police departments that I can judge as a local resident, but no more blanket “backing the blue”. The variation in how they conduct their law enforcement is enough that I can’t blanket support police without evidence of how each department conducts itself. Now that we’re here, many of us I think see that’s how it should’ve been from the start.

33
APXKnight 33 points ago +33 / -0

I'm told by my friends here in Indiana that when he was the Elkhart County prosecutor, he was a pretty awesome dude. Since he's not re-elected as the AG this year, I figured he would join as he's got nothing to lose anyway.

1
APXKnight 1 point ago +1 / -0

Using Bitwarden here too on Firefox & iOS, it worked for me after editing the URLs. Maybe make sure you have https://authentication.win instead of just authentication.win? It didn't seem to make a difference for me in my browser but maybe it's something unique with Bitwarden on Brave/Chrome.

2
APXKnight 2 points ago +2 / -0

This worked for me, too. Without knowing the particulars of the .win code, I'm guessing this is some kind of problem on iOS with the old thedonald.win authentication data stored in the browser conflicting with what's trying to be set by authentication.win. I believe that's why deleting data for thedonald.win makes you automatically logged in - whatever is holding things up from the old data is cleared, the data for authentication.win is still there and kicks in to reauthenticate you on thedonald.win.

1
APXKnight 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also possible that the sources that the observers saw which said counting was still happening, was also seen by these people and they figured someone would be coming, hence speeding up the fraud. Probably that in combination with security notifying == just finishing in time.

1
APXKnight 1 point ago +1 / -0

Haha, yeah, it sounds like me trying to explain something technical to somebody, and I branch off explaining so much that I forget where I was.

3
APXKnight 3 points ago +3 / -0

As a former Wikipedia administrator (I still read a lot of the project pages because oh is there still drama on the regular), this doesn’t surprise me in the least. The project I would say has long had left leaning bias, but in recent years their adherence to the neutral POV policy has declined (which is largely the reason for my departure).

Honestly, I could see a future where the project ends up tearing itself from within. Half the volunteer population can’t agree over stuff, and the Wikimedia Foundation constantly does dumb shit that ignores what the community wants.

4
APXKnight 4 points ago +4 / -0

As a mostly retired Wikipedian, it’s actually only extended-confirmed protected. There’s about 53k extended confirmed users on Wikipedia so there’s a lot of people that could change the page. Even pages under full protection are still open to a little over a thousand administrators.

3
APXKnight 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank you for this. My tech side of me felt like this affidavit didn’t really drop any bombshells. We can hope this person has more to share in court but as of now it doesn’t convince me yet.

10
APXKnight 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yeah, as a former Pennsylvania resident I just don't buy it. I moved after the 2016 election and from what I hear from friends things have only leaned more towards Trump. Hell, I was coming back from visiting friends not too long before the election and as we were getting onto the turnpike outside of Pittsburgh there was a HUGE Trump flag right there. It was unreal for me to see that anywhere near Pittsburgh.

9
APXKnight 9 points ago +10 / -1

These people... failed to update the manual, so let's just remove the reference to the manual from the order ¯_(ツ)_/¯

9
APXKnight 9 points ago +10 / -1

How do these people not understand this? You couldn't come to an agreement on the changes to the manual. Therefore what was previously agreed on is what stands.

14
APXKnight 14 points ago +14 / -0

Second this! I know you all need to be somewhat careful what you release, but stats are awesome to look at!

15
APXKnight 15 points ago +15 / -0

Having worked on a site which is at about a billion pageviews a month, I know exactly the growing pains, especially because we run on what I consider a pretty shoestring budget. You guys make us look like amateurs in that regard! You're doing a great job thus far! Keep up the good work and if you guys need any talent on infrastructure, there are plenty of us that would be willing to pitch in :)