They've flipped back and forth over the years, and the length has been tweaked as recently as 2007.
I think that what happens is everyone blames DST, but the real culprit is just that the days are shorter in the winter and there's not much we can do about it.
They're banned in 4 US states already, with seemingly no infringement on the 1st Amendment.
Legally speaking, the validity of banning billboards tends to be evaluated based on the Central Hudson test. More practically, there's numerous limitations to commercial speech... for example, you can't blare an audio ad from your rooftop.
They announced the MOR feature in December 2024, so I wouldn't really say that's a big selling point for them just yet, they have been around for over a decade.
I feel like Eric's full-time mission has become fighting Apple's propriety bend. His last company, Beeper, was basically also built on reverse engineering Apple's system very much against its will.
I can't believe I'm about to defend a HR payroll systems.... but I wouldn't call Rippling or Deel "crapware". We use both; they're boring but necessary products, and they do their job well.
[Edit: Added Deel, since we use both! Also hello to the Rippling salesperson who is reading this and is about to reach out to me to convince us to switch.]
Wow. I never noticed how much how I used the internet changed. I haven’t done a WHOIS in a decade.
When I started using the internet, it’s how I contacted people. If I liked their site or their blog, I’d check who was behind it and get an email address I could contact.
Now… humans don’t really own domains anymore. Content is so centralized. I obviously noticed this shift, but I had forgotten how I used to be able to interact with the internet.
Not just that. People had ".plan" files that could be viewed with finger, and they would post updates there. I specifically remember John Carmack sharing daily news and updates on his account. It was the first form of "Twitter" back in the 90's.
I think in most ways it's better, it makes the web more approachable to less technical users, making it less gate-keepey, but I also kind of miss the loosely-coupled cluster of web pages from the late-90's and early 2000's web.
Stuff felt less homogeneous; everyone had kind of a loose understanding of HTML, and people would customize their pages in horrendously wonderful ways. It felt more personal.
So many tech people have a fondness for that time. To me, it was a very narrow slice of the human experience. Today I can find sites and communities on any subject I can conceive and billions more that I cannot.
And personally I found it more horrendously ugly than horrendously wonderful. But that's just my opinion.
Yeah, as I said in most way things are better now than they were in the rose-tinted memories of the late 90's and early 2000's. Now if you want to say something on the internet, you can open up a Substack, or a Bluesky, or a Medium, or you can find a niche Subreddit. You don't need to know anything very technical, and that's a good thing.
I'll acknowledge that the old web was ugly, even at the time. I guess I just liked how much of it was, for lack of a better word, "custom". Most people were pretty bad at HTML, common web standards really hadn't caught out outside of "make it work in Internet Explorer", and CSS really hadn't caught on, so people glued together websites the best that they could.
Most websites looked pretty bad, but they were genuine. They didn't feel like some corporation built them, they felt like they were made by actual humans, and a lot of the time, actual children. I was one of those children.
I posted about this a week ago [1], but my first foray into programming was making crappy websites. It felt cool to me that a nine year old could make and publish a website, just like the grownups could. I didn't know anything about style so I had bright green backgrounds and used marquee tags and blink tags and I believe I had a midi of the X-files theme song playing in the background.
I guess it's the same sentimentality that I have when I look at a child's terrible drawing or reading one of my old terrible essays I wrote when I was eleven years old that my mom kept around. They're bad, they're embarrassing, but they're also kind of charming.
> Yeah, as I said in most way things are better now than they were in the rose-tinted memories of the late 90's and early 2000's. Now if you want to say something on the internet, you can open up a Substack, or a Bluesky, or a Medium, or you can find a niche Subreddit. You don't need to know anything very technical, and that's a good thing.
By 1999 you could create a LiveJournal or find a niche forum through Google. You didn't need to know anything very technical.
You could, Xanga as well, but it was still less connected. People complain about recommendation systems on YouTube and Facebook and Reddit, but one thing that they do well is give people more reach that they probably wouldn't have gotten before.
I've found so many interesting YouTube videos from people that I haven't ever heard of, just because of YouTube recommending them to me. Stuff like that didn't really exist for quite awhile; for a long time the best you had was aggregator sites like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com or similar sites.
> I think in most ways it's better, it makes the web more approachable to less technical users
There's a big gap between looking up someone's contact info using a protocol that many tools and websites implement (anyone can open www.who.is from search results) and the second example of needing an understanding of HTML to make a webpage. I don't think it's gatekeepey to be able to email the human behind a given website, whereas the current internet is full of walled gardens, gatekeepers, and faceless/supportless services (thinking of Discord, Cloudflare, and Google as respective examples)
We can have both human-run services and WYSIWYG website builders on the internet concurrently
Less gate keepey? Big Tech is literally the gatekeeper. Want to see a story without account? Too bad. What to see what events are going on without Facebook account? Too bad. Want to search discord or twitter. Too bad. Big Tech sucks in all user content and then hides it behind paywalls.
I think a lot of people fail to appreciate that the alternative to big tech taking over was not keeping things exactly the same as they were 20 or 30 years ago, but developing in a different direction.
It was the direction in which people expected things to develop: decentralised and democratised. There was a lot of optimism about empowering individuals.
My only nitpick is that humans still own domains, but I agree with the overall sentiment and thank you for sharing this perspective.
It is fascinating to consider how our experience with the internet is changing over time.
Remember phreaking? Having been born in the Netscape era, I certainly don't, but I can imagine that losing the ability to pull that trick off must have felt like a loss to those who were initiated in the art.
Thankfully the trend appears to be that new technologies and thus new 1337 h4x are still forthcoming.
I sometimes use whois multiple times in a day lol.
Should it exist? Maybe not, probably not, but that doesn't stop me from using it when I want to try to do some sleuthing. Most of the time though it doesn't work because they have privacy enabled.
I did get screwed once with certain TLDs not being able to enable privacy. I had registered a .at domain to use with a video site I had that at the time was reasonably popular and going viral fairly regularly. I hadn't realized beforehand that privacy wasn't possible, but once I learned, I didn't love it, but I wasn't sure if it would matter that much. I was wrong. I was getting calls and emails regularly from random people on the internet who found our content on reddit or whatever and decided to do some sleuthing
That works great until the TLD decides you need to hop through extended verification and fork over an identity card and a recent (3 months) invoice showing the address you signed up with 12 years ago, freezing your domain such that you can't update the information to be your current address even if you wanted to share that with the world (because privacy doesn't exist and GDPR doesn't apply in French-run/France-headquartered AFNIC). There's no time to dispute it or go back and forth: the initial email already comes with the announcement that your domain will go dark if they haven't processed your response after 14 days. Oh yeah, and you need to submit this via plain text email. If you send a link to the pdf scan, so that you can remove it after they've viewed it, that gets rejected (but it will be downloaded by an overseas system, run in the USA, within seconds of sending it), they'll respond that it specifically needs to be an attachment so that it will linger in their inbox forever
If you use fake info in relation to WHOIS data, you also need to be prepared to forge an identity document (a pretty bad felony in most countries per my understanding)
That said, on most forms I enter fake info because they they have no legitimate use for it anyway and they also can't compare it against anything. Buying a game or event ticket needs my address? For what, linking my purchase to a profile they're building? Nah, fake address it is
Although shit did happen back in the day. Someone show up at the house of the DeviantART CEO in like... I wanna say like, mmm.. 2007? and slashed his tires etc. WhoIs was only cool in the 90s.
I did a Whois last week to prove to my previous registrar that I'm no longer with them, and that the invoice they sent was invalid. Unexpected use-case, but useful.
On the other hand, I did a WHOIS days ago to check up on a potential scam site my partner landed on while working on an e-commerce platform. I hope some alternative exists, people using Let's Encrypt leaves an entry in the transparency log but people don't necessarily need to use that. I haven't researched the alternatives to WHOIS yet but now I'll have to.
I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either way, I hate that it worked.
This is tech. This is how it has always been. From Archemedes to DaVinci to Edison to Ford, technologists are always captured to serve the interests of those in power. Most modern technologists don't want to believe this. They grew up building an Internet that had a bit of countercultural flair to it and undermined a few subsets of entrenched elites (mass media, taxi cartels, etc.), so they convinced themselves that they could control society under their wise hands. Except the same thing that always happened happened: the powers that be are now treating tech the way tech treats everyone else.
It made sense to ponder given HN attracts people with the hacker mindset (the drive of curiosity to understand how things work and how to improve them, not merely accepting the status quo as gospel like the dry monkeys) and frustration is a good signal that something could be improved.
Wealth of Nations (read past pg 50, unlike most current economists)
Das kapital, as a critique to Smith's writing.
Communist manifesto, to understand the point of the laborer, and not capital.
Read about worker cooperatives and democracy in the workplace, including Mondragon corp in Spain.
(One of the largest problems we have with any economic system is that none can properly model infinites. The cost of creating new is expensive be it art or science. But cost of copying is effectively 0. I can highlight the problem, but I have no good solution. But OpenAI's response is 'let us ignore copyright law' which wrongs creators.)
Centralizing production goals, decision making, and expenditure at the Federal government is what made the industrial response to WW2 successful. Centralizing tax revenue to fund retirements for the elderly (Social Security) resulted in the poverty rate of seniors being brought far lower. Centralizing zoning control at the state of California is _finally_ starting to make localities take responsibility for building more housing. These were/are centralizing efforts with the intent of helping the masses over the wealthy few.
What doesn't work is centralizing power with the intent of concentrating wealth and security by taking wealth, labor, and security from working people, AKA extractive institutions.
That's true whether it's the donor-class funded political establishment or regimes like the current US kleptocracy doing it.
Problem is, once you centralize, that remains in place for a long time, but the original intent, even if it was genuine, rarely outlives the people who implemented it for long.
Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources. So regardless of intent, it attracts people who are into power, and over time, they take over. The original intent often remains symbolically and in the rhetoric used, but when you look beyond that into the actual policies, they are increasingly divorced from what is actually claimed.
> Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively little resources
This is why (1) shared principles and (2) credible democracy is important, to allow evolution of the centralized power (i.e. government) towards the shared principles, and why its corporate-bribed facsimile or oligarchic authoritarianism don't work.
Credibility of democracy breaks down as you scale upward (which you have to do if you want to centralize). Any representative democracy in which the representative doesn't know all the people they represent is already suspect, but when you get to the point where a single guy supposedly represents hundreds of thousands or even millions, it's kinda obvious that there's no meaningful representation involved. The only way to avoid that is to grow the parliament instead to the point where it ceases to function as a deliberative assembly (and then what's the point of it?).
Or you can have a bunch of smaller assemblies that actually are representative, and then a larger one to which assemblies delegate their own to cooperate. But that's exactly political decentralization - a multi-level federation.
I think it can work for a short period of time if you have enlightened leaders or if the political machine wants to please you; they always alternate pleasing some people and upsetting others so that they can keep control.
Over a long period of time the interest of the powerful will always win. There is a reason if no government (whether left or right) can fix the situation and inequality between the top 0.01% and the rest keeps increasing.
The only solution to maximise wellbeing for individuals is to reduce the amount of control the powerful can exert on the rest of society.
I don't think someone with more capital should be able to make the decisions
That's what we're getting with "democracy" because ultimately swaying the opinion of a lot of people (in this technological time) requires money. No wonder the powerful elite or their puppets end up making decision for the majority.
No, what I advocate for is for decentralisation of power, I don't want any central entity making choices for me.
Someone with capital should be able to offer to buy me out but they shouldn't be able to tax me or decide what happens to me or my property.
I heard rumblings about some sort of system where power is shared equally across three branches of government with checks and balances to ensure one branch doesn't go rogue and just do whatever they want.
Forget what they called it, united something or other.
Well, the people who designed that system were very skeptical of political parties in general, and thought they could be avoided. Turns out that this isn't true, and once you have parties, they can in fact capture all three branches of government, and then those "checks and balances" kinda stop working.
In fact, that's not too far away from our current trajectory. Algorithmically enforced sovereign oversight is part of the patchwork state and Yarvinism specifically.
This is a very rich man, he is not being forced to do anything. What he does is what he believes and you don't need to spend time coming up with a complex explanation past that. He needs no one's charity.
I think that what happens is everyone blames DST, but the real culprit is just that the days are shorter in the winter and there's not much we can do about it.
reply