Posted by HumanCCF 22 hours ago
I remember publishing a website for a class on my .tk domain, the teacher couldn't open it and I almost got a failing grade because of it.
I don't get how you get to be an IT teacher without knowing the most basic troubleshooting steps to get assignments to run.
Full Color.
Executing the code in your head removed from the nuances of hardware, CPU architecture and compiler versions seems like a virtuous pursuit (?)
…and that’s how we got Java :p
And stuff like Pascal, too, so it’s not all bad.
Attendance typically correlates with classroom success.
Attendance avoids truancy proceedings.
One of the kids in my elementary school got a hat for perfect attendance through 6th grade.
I've never seen attendance shown on a transcript though, but you could fill some space on a resume with it, especially if you have the hat to show for it.
He knew we were computer nerds so didn't really care about teaching us (we knew more than him anyway). And we didn't mind that he just sat there drinking coffee and reading a book, as it meant we could just play videogames for an hour. Good times.
During this period I was berated by our studio lead for using new fangled technologies like CSS layout that could adapt to different sized screens instead of sticking to the trusty HTML soup Dreamweaver would spit out.
That said, personally I’ve never understood Dreamweaver either. By the time I tried it, I’ve already got used to Notepad++ and writing HTML by hand, so I’ve just treated it as another text editor... and IIRC it just felt way more laggy than Notepad++, with a browser preview panel that took half of my 4:3 display. Maybe I’d discover some cool features if I’ve spent some more time in it? I dunno.
A lot of people (me included) used text editors to write HTML. The process was not easy, and the results mostly not correct.
HTML at the time was intended as an application of SGML. This is the first example of HTML from RFC 1866 that laid out HTML 2.0 in 1995:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<title>Parsing Example</title>
<p>Some text. <em>*wow*</em></p>
Worse, it was an extended superset (ha!) of SGML. At least 20 years ago, SGML::Parser would reject some valid HTML documents.
That said, it was really easy to type correctly in a text editor (especially compared to actual SGML), particularly one that indented and matched tags for you.
Turns out you save save as HTML and any links you put between slides become anchor tags.
Pretty neat, but hurt my soul to have all my classmates do that
Most universities are unethical shitholes that can do basically whatever they want to gatekeep a diploma.
There is so much shady things about academic env that it doesnt sound scary
Ive witnessed situation where "hard" prof was teaching and many ppl failed, and then thry received "easy" prof and they passed
But they had to pay for exams and retake, etc
What they did say is that the school sometimes fails students to get more money — supposedly implying that this was not because they did not meet the passing criteria.
This does not preclude failing students when they deserve it.
It is ok to question of what makes them believe they would have passed the exams without this financial motivation for the school, but they were pretty clear IMO.
Western Governors University. Online 4 year degree. Classes are passed when you pass the "high stakes" (read: proctorio test). This means if you know the material, then you can pass a class in 1 day.
HOWEVER, when you do your final test, they only tell you pass or fail. They do NOT show you what questions you got right or wrong. If you fail, you have to wait 5 days and go through professor hoops. Of course, you naturally never actually talked to the prof. Its all online through ZyBooks.
But WGU benefits on failing people, and by hiding what you failed at. Because the longer you attend, the more they charge. Their response is basically "Get Gud Scrub but we're not gonna tell you how".
Later versions of Internet Explorer had compatibility mode, but it often wasn’t enough to get things working, especially if there was ActiveX involved or the security policies were restrictive.
Schools were especially prone to this due to their limited budgets among other reasons, and IT teachers weren’t normally the decision makers who could do anything about it. You shouldn’t assume that a random IT teacher had the authority to spontaneously upgrade a school computer that needs to be used for things besides that one student’s assignment.
However in this case, my friend just helped the IT teacher install Google Chrome on his computer and showed that the site rendered fine there. I don't know what sort of policies were in place but there were evidently no technical measures implemented to prevent people from installing a modern browser.
Teaching is rewarding which is why people do it, but you're asking them to take less pay for what is often a harder job - convincing kids to learn something when they have dozens of other things competing for their interest. The math aligns on the side with the teacher having the knowledge you would expect in this scenario - with a fair number of teachers not as much knowledge as one would hope they would have. On the students side, if they are bright then this is a soft-skill learning opportunity - how to navigate knowing more than your superior to the benefit of you both.
All of the market forces you describe are real, but they are partly sustained by cultural templates that make teaching a low-status job among those with technical qualifications and lead to an assumption that every teacher is either (a) internally motivated and doesn't "need" competitive compensation or (b) a washout from a more prestigious track and doesn't "deserve" competitive compensation. This affects administrators, policymakers, voters, and teachers themselves, giving us the status quo where teachers are paid and treated like shit (ask a K-12 educator about the most psychotic parent they met this year and whether admin had their back) so that even many people who love teaching gradually evaporate out of the field if they can.
I suppose I'm not even arguing that the material result is much different than you describe it, just that it's lazy, amoral thinking to frame it as a market quirk or the immutable nature of teaching rather than a slow-motion sociocultural trainwreck over which we can exercise some iota of agency. (One such iota might be to simply not say "those who can..." in earnest ever again.)
That first teacher died shortly after, she had terminal breast cancer. I miss her a lot
The schools admins told me he had tenure so there was nothing I could do.
Didn’t take me a whole year before I switched majors.
Or just ineptitude, but I'm hoping for the former.
pretty strict and apparently the Minister of that agency doesnt care that .af is a domain hack for “as fuck” in the west
2. Sell domain name that's against Sharia law
3. Retake it back when someone buys it, because it's against the law
4. Repeat and profit
The registry thankfully was able to sort it out and I was able to get it back and registered with a regisrar not currently being actively genocided.
I felt like a real dick, emailing people in Gaza in 2026 how to renew my domain.
Brits that had `.eu` domains lost their domains due to Brexit [2] (unless they had some other EEA ties).
And if the Chagos deal goes ahead [3] and the British Indian Ocean Territory ceases to exist, then all `.io` domains might disappear too (although considering that `.su`/Soviet Union domains are still a thing, they probably would have stayed around).
[1]: https://www.404media.co/taliban-shuts-down-queer-af-domain-b...
[2]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/registering-and-renewing-eu-doma...
Ouch, that must've hurt. Brexit is the most stupid thing that Britain has ever imposed on itself.
Not enough allowance to fund a .com domain, had to use freenom / tk + cloudflare for my first years of self hosting
In the mid 2000’s, I moderated a domain name discussion forum in exchange for free hosting. “X forum posts per month = x gb of bandwidth”
My goal was to post enough for them to give me WHM access so I could try to resell it.
Those were the days.
I once mailed $70 cash (multiple months of allowance) to someone to code a MVP of something I wanted to build.
They ripped me off and disappeared.
And… that’s when I decided I needed to learn to code!
My parents were not happy when I told them I sent cash to a stranger. I remember having to do it in secret because they were very not okay with the idea that you can meet strangers online. Hah.
I think reason is I went to work, slung .NET and didn't think much about computers otherwise except occasional reading some C++ books for "fun".
Might be too old then. I used my parents speedy ADSL modem (4mbit/s down, 1mbit/s up) :D
Haven’t had much issues but surely if could go back and i’d pick a different tld.
In brief, I think they aim to solve the most important needs for online identity-gated services in a maximally private way.
For instance, I'd like to see .self offer the following: a single domain to any person in the world with identity blinded. I can imagine two 'tranches': say xxx.v.self for 'verified' and xxx.u.self for 'unverified'.
Both would use a Zero Knowledge proof to confirm they had not already registered a domain; verified would register with you guys or a data broker some PII in case it was needed for verification / checks / etc, while unverified would maintain the promise of one domain = one person, but not allow the TLD or registrars to be able to unblind which person it is.
Use cases like this would be really fantastic. And, obviously could be tested out and tried on a normal domain name while you make your pitch, and put in for the auction / however ICANN is currently managing TLD launches.
I wish the Vega people had oriented their work around general-purpose zkVMs instead of application-specific ZK circuits. The latter is a fleeting efficiency win; the former is a permanent flexibility advantage. ZK-based privacy advocates shouldn't over-index on proof performance on today's systems when zkVM systems have been making multiple-OOM performance improvements over the past couple of years.
IOW, with Nova, the Vega people are trying to do something very clever (just as the BBS+ people are trying to do something very cleaver) that general-purpose compute wins have made unnecessary.
Something like RISC Zero will let you run arbitrary Rust code under zero knowledge in a few hundred milliseconds with little fuss. Nobody appreciates that identity verification is one special case of a vast set of useful applications enabled by widespread adoption of a ZK compute platform.
RISC Zero is useful for crypto use-cases: Other people need to verify an exact program was run.
The identity use case is about connecting sources of trust (document issuers) with consumers of that trust ("this is a real person") in ways that don't release more than the minimum information required ("the passport office has signed that this is a real person so we can trust that").
Single purpose circuits make a lot of sense for this - there is just no need to a full ZK RISC-V VM for this use case.
> Single purpose circuits make a lot of sense for this
No, they don't. They lock your system into a single set of trade-offs without an advantage to offset it. They're premature optimization. How do you think ZK systems can be made resilient to cloning attacks without hardware locking if your ZK vocabulary is limited to stupid BBS-style selective disclosure and nothing else?
I don't understand what "BBS-style" means in this context, but selective disclosure is exactly what the requirement is.
For example, age verification: I can run a program that takes a signed time-stamp and an officially-signed birth certificate and produces a yes/no "over 18" boolean, then prove to you I actually ran this program, not just "return true", but WITHOUT revealing the birth certificate.
It's a really neat facility that too few people are thinking about. We've had zero knowledge systems for a few decades now, but until now, each one has been a special bespoke mathematical object that would take years to develop. Over the past year or two, we've 1) made the things 1000x faster, and 2) made it possible to write arbitrary code under zero knowledge instead of having to make each ZK system a PHD thesis.
Others say that zkVMs are pointless because they're less efficient than these bespoke mathematical objects. Yes, they are. So what? The flexibility is worth it. Others say that zkVMs came out of Etherium, so they're only good for "crypto" stuff. False. Sure, it's the Etherium people who did a lot of foundational research into efficient zkVMs. We owe them a debt of gratitude, because they made a new kind of CS object that's going to be useful for tons of things not tied to Etherium or web3 in any way.
Anyway, if you want to get a feel for fully programmable ZK systems, check out https://noir-lang.org/, a programming language for ZK programs (not a zkVM, but same UX). Or https://github.com/a16z/jolt, which lets you run normal Rust under zero knowledge.
Today, you can write normal-looking code and have it execute under zero knowledge, and, importantly, efficiently. You literally couldn't do this two years ago, and it changes everything.
ID verification is not enough, you also need some way to prevent one malicious user from re-selling the same ID to millions of others. Without ZKPs, you know what document the user is trying to sign up with, so you can rate-limit that document. With ZKPs, however, you need those rate limits to exist somewhere else.
0) The actual intersting part of a new TLD can be growing reputation by post-facto taking away a domain without recourse in case of squatting. Instead of adversarial takedowns (which produce false positives as noted), let anyone challenge an inactive domain in the first year or two.
1) If they can figure out a mechanism for moving a domain from "assigned" -> "squatted".
2) Domain must match (or derive from) a verified identity - e.g. your domain is a hash/slug of your government ID. Makes squatting structurally impossible because you can't claim someone else's name / gov (Sign in with passkeys linked to a national ID).
3) Proof of human effort, reduced with time - require periodic renewal with proof-of-use (DNS TXt updates, through a flow hard to automate).
4) Kill speculative market - domains are non-sellable and non-transferable - always go back to the free pool, and stay there for 30 days mandatorily.
Some mix of these could be the right structure for a trule high-reputation, free domain.
> You cannot transfer ownership killing any value you added
I think this is by design. The domain should be for personal use - hence free.
An ecosystem with an under-exploited niche will eventually produce the behaviour that fills the niche. It's a self-optimizing system. None of this is fundamentally escapable as long as we are living organisms competing for finite resources.
A monopolist hiking prices to this extent will likely see legal action against them. That's a 20x increase you're proposing.
It's also unlikely to have a material effect. .com used to cost $75 a year back in the day, and that didn't stop squatters, and high value domain transfer sales. $75 in 1990s dollars is about $150-$190 today.
then don't allow reselling, just allow giving it back and do a raffle again
Many ways of adding friction to obtaining the updatable value - which a human owning a domain would be happy to do, but a squatter would not want to.
that's how one of my local companies tries to force clients in. They removed auth code from their web panels and introduced complex snail-mail procedure.
That was clear signal to run, but it took me 6 months to do just the domain transfer.
> Everyone entitled to a subdomain at no cost
How are you going to pay for the (substantial) cost of running a TLD without registration fee revenue? Is this a loss leader for other services? Are you operating on a 100% donation model?
> No parking, squatting, or reselling
How do you plan to tell the difference between a parked/squatted domain and one in legitimate use but offering no public-facing services?
We plan on operating the domain as a public good and are actively seeking sponsors to help fund us. Think of it as a similar model to ISRG and LetsEncrypt.
> No parking, squatting, or reselling
Our rule of one person per subdomain will hopefully prevent this at scale, though it will admittedly be more difficult to examine any particular domain so closely. We may have to implement some type of heartbeat where the owner of said domain has to respond within a certain amount of time.
In that case it was started by an institution (mozilla) with a lot of heft in the area (mozilla's CA program is one of the most broadly used) and was backed by other orgs (google) that had a vested interest in it's success. I'd be interested to hear which potential sponsors you see in a similar situation here?
> rule of one person per subdomain
What is the plan to (without costly overhead or cost to the end user) validate who is an actual person? Even large corporations with loads of resources have problems with this without resorting to treating it as if a person equals a credit card number.
We are reaching out to companies who operate in the self-hosted space, academia, ISPs, registars, as well as digital rights orgs. We believe they would be aligned with this mission and ultimately benefit from such a TLD existing!
> What is the plan to (without costly overhead or cost to the end user) validate who is an actual person? Even large corporations with loads of resources have problems with this without resorting to treating it as if a person equals a credit card number.
There are a few emerging technologies we are evaluating to help with this but have not settled on one just yet. Whatever we choose, we will start small and go from there. Worst-case scenario, we start with the credit card approach and iterate. This will ultimately all be a part of the evaluation process we go through with ICANN.
---
To stick with your comparison: when letsencrypt and ISRG launched they had actual answers for how to deal with the hard challenges in their space:
A) how to get included in a trust roots (crossigning with IdenTrust at first and the knowledge and expertise of how to get included in the longer term)
B) Automated domain validation in a standardized way (ACME)
C) Long term commitments of sponsorships to ensure people could trust it would stick around
---
I wish you the best of luck, but I think this might have needed to bake a bit longer before publicizing.
No it won’t. Spammers will just pay thousands of random people in poor countries to create their domain.
A domain squatter is in an easier position to automate that than an amateur to not forget to respond.
Might be good to know that even in the US this approach would only work for ~50% of people, since a lot of people don't have passports. In most countries this does not work at all, since they don't issue NFC enabled ID/passports.
Oh, cool! Russia is not on the list. Another service that excludes me just becasue I got lucky with the colour of my (NFC-enabled, biometric) passport.
On a less bitter note, I don’t think it’s that hard to build biometric passport validation. Face matching would be another thing, but for unregulated industries I don’t think you’ll need that, so why not grab some library from GitHub and be in control of the whole process? (You would still need to handle people without biometric passports somehow, of course.)
Is it actually a substantial expense? The TLD itself only has to publish the nameserver records, which generally have a TTL of about a day. A DNS response is a few hundred bytes. Big DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare would make requests for every actively used domain every day, but then cache them. Smaller providers wouldn't cache as well but also wouldn't each request every domain every day. For e.g. a million personal domains, ballpark estimate is somewhere in the few TB a month of traffic. Maybe a little over personal hobby project money but definitely not outrageous for a small non-profit organization.
> How do you plan to tell the difference between a parked/squatted domain and one in legitimate use but offering no public-facing services?
This is the easy one. Squatters buy domains because they want to sell them. To sell them they have to make it publicly known to prospective buyers that the domain is available for sale. So then if anyone lists the domain for sale anywhere, you make them prove that they own it (which any actual buyer would also have to do in order to not get scammed) and when they do the domain is forfeit.
It's kind of sad that we don't do that for all domains. Domain squatters can go to hell.
Most TLDs need to allow domain transfers because projects do genuinely change ownership sometimes. If you allow transfers, you allow reselling by definition (because you can't physically determine whether cash changes hands).
This isn't like tickets, where "return to pool and let an interested party buy it" is a viable strategy. Tickets are fungible, domains are non-fungible.
That's fine. It's not the transferring that you punish, it's the offering for sale. Good luck squatting when publishing any solicitation to sell the domain is the thing that causes you to lose it. How many domains are you going to squat on and pay renewal fees for when you have no way to let the public know you're willing to sell them that won't cause you to lose them?
> This isn't like tickets, where "return to pool and let an interested party buy it" is a viable strategy. Tickets are fungible, domains are non-fungible.
What does fungibility have to do with whether you can return something to the pool? The lack of fungibility makes it work even better, because if you want a specific domain and you find someone squatting on it, you can report them advertising it for sale. When the registry verifies that the report is true then the person filing the original report can be given first crack at the domain when it goes back into the pool.
Also, who is paying for the reduced fee, administrative and infra costs? And have you actually submitted gTLD application, or are you trying to crowdfund? Unclear to me.
90+% of people who would be willing to sponsor this stuff will go "hmm, I wonder where they've taken their money from, not us I guess." Not everybody reads comments, even fewer post ones of their own.
Being on the front of HN is a great opportunity, I'm afraid you haven't used yours as well as you possibly could.
I’m guessing, if designed well, the registration process could run on lightweight infrastructure. Maybe $1-5k total per year, not counting time. So it’s enough for a fun hobby project.
Having said that gestures to the entirety of the internet
So maybe not such a big deal.
Maybe you are not up to date on latest trends, but modern CDN purpose is to shield the origin from the public writ large.
However, perhaps more relevantly, it isn't clear why this needs a TLD and all the hassle associated with a tld when it could just as easily be attached to any convenient domain name lying around that you have access to, such as, oh, say, onmy.cloud.
Then again I have this objection to almost all TLDs. But I'm not sure I'm wrong.
At the very least if you want to show ICANN that you mean business I would strongly suggest just doing it on onmy.cloud, and tell people that if you get the .self you'll transparently migrate their onmy.cloud domain on to .self when you get it. Nothing says "I can do this" like actually doing it.
Regardless, a UUID is probably the right call. It doesn't help with memorability but it's at least more stable than an IPv4/IPv6 address and can be hard-coded. I wonder if you would get a full zone or if it's just an A/AAAA record given their broader goals of email and VPN tunneling.
https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db
Is this just an idea at this point, or some kind of "you have to use our DNS to resolve .self domains" scheme - ?
Inb4 they give away .docx
(Yes, the domain "readme.md" exists. Fortunately, whoever owns it is not using their power for evil and does not have any webserver there... but I'm not risking it.)
Cloudflare offers this now (their Pay to Crawl service) but its not geared towards every human getting paid for their content. As of today Facebook and other social media platforms profit from our content....not us!
- Centralized authorities for IP & DNS assignment? You (+anyone else you can convince) can just ignore that and it'll work in your bubble anyways!
- No centralized authorities for IP & DNS assignment? You (+anyone else you can convince) can just ignore that and it'll work in your bubble anyways!
My above pedantry aside, the article is explicitly about "The Internet" (it's even using the capital "I" oft forgotten about these days). I.e. the worldwide bubble which has centrally controlled assignment via ICANN/IANA, separate from other systems using the DNS/IP protocols. That's why it talks about ICANN and why bananamogul mentioned .self has not been centrally registered with IANA yet.