The fact that these bureaucrats think they have a right to add age-verification to information is ludicrous in the first place. This should be as much non-news as 'Lawmakers unanimously decide death is legal'.

Lawmakers—contemporary and otherwise—have in fact decided many many times that the state can deprive you of your life as punishment for certain crimes.

I believe what parent commenter is suggesting is that it would be ridiculous for lawmakers to call it a crime to die, say without verifying you are of the legal age to do so. It would be like declaring that breathing is legal: why does that need a proclamation?

There is no age verification in AB1043. Anyone who says there is is a propagandist.

The article says:

> You do not need to deport all of them to deport the ones who "take over public spaces".

And continues to assume that DHH is talking about mass deportation. He's not. He says:

> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.

He's not saying we should deport _all_ gypsies just because one group is taking over public space.

Can you explain how that's analogous to what he thinks we should do to wolves? Does he think that we should only shoot the wolves that are causing problems and leave the innocent majority of wolves alone?

Today I learned for the 7th time, never to go with Godaddy.

We've built multiple websites with Astro.js, including customer facing ones such as bustinger.com, and love it.

Simple to use, blazing fast results. JSX. Use another framework you like inside it (e.g. React, svelte).

Thanks!

Thanks, we couldn't stand by idly any longer while people are getting scammed out of their life savings.

Take on more responsibility. Specifically say yes to something you want to do but are scared of. Like starting a business or getting a dog.

What about if you need rolling deployments?

All you need for rolling deployments is >1 instance and load balancing. You can use DNS load balancing which isn't very nuanced, a local load balancer per machine (like nginx with 2 backend on the same machine) or more complex load balancing systems

I really have no idea what could even make sense. The cause I consider most likely is that they have a bias toward blocking new accounts, and only if you do display certain behaviours, will they not block you.

>I really have no idea what could even make sense. The cause I consider most likely is that they have a bias toward blocking new accounts, and only if you do display certain behaviours, will they not block you.

No, if twitter just blocked all new accounts they'd be out of business very rapidly.

Twitter isn't actively talking to facebook about content moderation.

You're definitely on a list. Don't worry, practically everyone on HN is on a list or 2.