The fairly well established term is churnalism.

What does *Arr stack mean, please?

Sonarr et al.

Ah, interesting. This is not something I’m at all familiar with. Lots to read!

I use cloudflare DNS because it’s faster. But should I worry, having read your comment? What is the downside to using it? What would you recommend instead?

Quad9.

Many years ago I used Cloudflare, and more than once I had issues with them blocking websites I wanted to access.

I absolutely despise that. I want my DNS to resolve domain names, nothing else.

For blocking things I have Pi-Hole, which is under my control for that reason. I can blacklist or whitelist addresses to my needs, not to the whims of a corporation that wants to play gatekeeper to what I can browse.

So… why not use 1.1.1.1, cloudflare’s resolver that does not block resolution?

1.1.1.2 and .3 are explicitly offered with filtered responses.

I used to use 1.1.1.1. I still had issues.

Quad9 behaves exactly as I expect a DNS to work, in the sense that I only remember I use it when the topic of DNS pops up.

No, I do not keep any logs from domain name resolution from the DNS service I used from 7+ years ago. If you do, I commend you.

I used the term "blocking" in a loose sense. I have no idea if Cloudflare was failing to resolve certain domains because it is a shitty service, or if it was ordered to block those domain names by its government, or if it was actively not resolving domain names because it thought a good idea to be a sort of arbiter and gatekeeper. I suspect the last option, but it is just speculation.

What I can affirm is that I had issues more than once with domain name resolution when I used 1.1.1.1. After it annoyed me enough I switched to Quad9, and it has been great ever since, which is why I recommend it as a user of their service.

> I have no idea if Cloudflare was failing to resolve certain domains because it is a shitty service, or if it was ordered to block those domain names by its government, or if it was actively not resolving domain names because it thought a good idea to be a sort of arbiter and gatekeeper.

I'm going to go with option D) whatever shitty site you were browsing to had a broken DNS or more likely DNSSEC configuration and Cloudflare was correct to not serve a corrupt response.

99% of the time, tales of "they're blocking my site! you guys are nazis!" always turn out to have a root cause of broken DNS configuration.

> I'm going to go with option D) whatever shitty site you were browsing to had a broken DNS or more likely DNSSEC configuration and Cloudflare was correct to not serve a corrupt response.

And once I switched DNS I could browse it normally.

This does not align quite well with the scenario you propose.

> "they're blocking my site! you guys are nazis!"

I said no such thing. I said it was a shitty DNS because it failed at the thing I was trying to use it for.

I don’t keep DNS logs at all. But I also don’t show up 7 years later trash talking a company or product based on guesswork and fear.

It's not based in "guesswork and fear". It is a first-person account of someone that used their service. A user review, if you will.

There's this thing - when you offer a service to the public, the users of your service, can, will, and should review your service.

So, yes, I am free to "trash talk" a service that was, frankly, terrible at its job in providing domain name resolution. That works as any other user review, a data point so other users may switch away from a bad provider to a better one.

I imagine if someone goes to a restaurant and they their hot dish is served cold, if your response to the user review is a silly request for proof that the food was indeed served cold, and whining that their review is "trash talking based on fear and guesswork".

If you said that they served you cold food because the US government made them do it, yea, I’d think you were nuts.

And that's not what I said?

I offered some possibilities of why they did a shitty job in providing naming resolution. I even speculated what was the most likely one (not the one you mentioned).

But it's okay, at this point I have very little optimism regarding your reading ability.

Because that would be subject to the whim of the provider, who subject to court orders would have to oblige to continue operating as US entity.

How does that differ from Quad9? You’re subject to Swiss laws, so there’s still a government involved? And you’re now hosted in an area where the US government has far fewer limitations on what they can attempt.

Quad9 is based in Switzerland, but the three founders-sponsors are US-based [0], so I’m not sure if it can be considered 100% safe from US government intervention.

[0] https://quad9.net/about/sponsors/

The ASN and stuff is also operated by a US entity it seems like:

  ASHandle:       AS19281
  Street:         CleanerDNS Inc. dba Quad9
  Street:         1442A Walnut Street, Suite 501
  City:           Berkeley
  State/Prov:     CA
  Country:        US

They also have servers in the US, so that's yet another reason not to consider them "100% safe from US government intervention"

Also a quick search suggests that Switzerland has made Internet providers in-country block DNS results in the past.

Why give all your queries to a single company with an interest in tracking you and selling your data?

But don’t most ISPs do this? And if you use google’s DNS, for example, are they not doing this? Does cloudflare sell the data?

IMO all the more reason to run your own resolver and not just forward every query to a single entity.

I think (but am not sure) that there are long established postal laws in most territories about sending “obscene” material through the mail. I think this was used to prosecute pornography publishers in earlier times. BUT you needed to (a) intercept mail and (b) have a good reason and (c) get a warrant to open (interfere with) that mail.

Possessing pornography was a separate issue which may or may not be allowed. Typically (I think) authorities went after publishers not consumers - because they were easier targets to pin down.

Which would seem to imply that if you’re sending encrypted traffic at the request of a recipient the as a publisher of “obscene” material then unless you are delivering very clearly illegal content to a user then you should not prosecuted.

I haven’t got a single source for anything I’m saying, so I might be entirely wrong - I’m simply going off half-remembered barely-facts. So please do argue with me!

No idea but doesn’t it sound GREAT and filled with portentous meaning? Don’t be an enterprise clown! Be a gutsy hustle guy like me! Down with enterprise theatre, long live the vibe jam!

December 40th is last day of Q5.

I didn’t read it as an attack on the novels. I think it’s meant to be about Trump. Or football. Or something. I couldn’t really tell.

It’s post modern, y’know?

Wary, not weary. Wary: cautious. Weary: tired.

This is really common, I think because there’s also “leery” - cautious, distrustful, suspicious.

That video is bizarre. Such a heavy breather.

What a weird and inconsequential thing to focus on...

He's just fucking closely miced with compression + speaking fast and anxious/excited speaking to an audience

Maybe. But that’s what I focused on, for better or worse. I couldn’t concentrate on what he was saying because of it. Maybe bad mic placement, but the end results was like some sort of old school phone sex pest.

Most of that is just nervousness

I’ve been seeing stuff saying China is a big customer of Iranian oil, so maybe there are oil tankers heading to China from Iran. No idea if that is actually the case though. I wonder if that Flexport shipping map that was shared here recently has any info?