No quick answer, but i’ve passed it on. I do know there are still some issues affecting availability, so it may yet be a little bit, I’m sorry to say - please feel free to poke me again in a week or two, but hopefully you might not have to. :)

Asian

What’s your problem with Asian women? ;-)

only works in Australia

The internet is older than the world wide web, and that’s just one service that exists.

Having a server directly behind the domain like example.com originally wasn’t common. Back in the days, you might want to make an FTP connection or a pop3 connection, or telnet or gopher, which would typically use like ftp.example.com, mail.example.com, telnet.example.com, gopher.example.com. None of these examples are web servers. You wouldn’t get a webpage back from them.

So when the world wide web became a thing, it was common to set up www.example.com and serve webpages from that subdomain.

The thing that changed in the mid 90s as the internet started to become more popular was that the world wide web quickly took over as the main thing people used when connecting to sites for information or data, so after a while it became common to have the web server respond to requests sent to the bare domain itself. (We’re ignoring ports for the sake of simplicity)

Although that change meant that you could go to example.com for most sites, or www.example.com for most sites, people had already learned that “www dot something dot com” meant a website, and so many people typed www even if it wasn’t necessary. And because there was no harm in having this set up, the tradition continues to this day to set up that subdomain and typically point it to the main web server.

But there’s no reason you have to. You can set things up so that requests to example.com get a different website than www.example.com. But it will confuse your visitors, so most people don’t.

So to answer your question: We stopped needing to say “www” in front of websites URLs by the mid 90s for the most part, but it stuck in the ‘common knowledge’ and is still around today because most people have no clue how it all works. In other words, your question is partly wrong, but the part that’s right has been true for almost all of the public internet’s history. :)

These are all domain names and DNS servers are used to resolve these to different IPs.

These are all subdomain names. And subdomains can point to a different IP, or they can point to the same IP. They can also use a CNAME record to point to another [sub]domain name, and it’s probably most common to have an A record on the main domain with the IP and just use a CNAME on the www subdomain so that it always points to the same place the main domain points.

DNS does not know anything about http or https or any other protocal like that. It just resolves the domain name to an IP/set of IPs. The only thing it can do is point www.microsoft.com and microsoft.com to the same location so that you can use either to get to the webservers.

CNAME is the record that is used to point e.g. www.microsoft.com to microsoft.com. They could use an A record for www.microsoft.com and use the same IP as the A record for microsoft.com, which would accomplish the same thing, but would have to be updated when the IP for microsoft.com changes.

Most websites have a CNAME for “www” pointing to the main domain. Certainly all the webhosting panels I know of do it automatically, because there’s no great reason not to. Some people will use “www” and so if it fails, that’s a silly thing to have fail.

Bacteria in your gut is life, so when you take anti-biotics, you are a murderer by your own stupid logic.

Alamy Not sure Alamy what you’re talking Alamy about, I see Alamy nothing wrong Alamy.

Impotent as in

was joke :)

long ramble

“Ramble” is not intended as an insult, mind. I have severe ADHD and ramble quite a lot. Rambling can be useless, but it can also be working through all of the foundational stuff, all of the possibiliites. Simply the antithesis of speaking in soundbites.

I find a lot to agree with, but it’s always boring to just say “Oh, I agree with this and this and this” and easier to point out where I disagree, so… allow me to express some disagreement, even while I agree with a large part. :)

First, while there is merit to viewing red/blue as bullshit political theatre, there is also a critical difference: The red team tends towards wanting to take away human rights, to impose their worldviews on the rest of us. Their “religious freedom” involves taking away our rights. Whereas if the blue team completely won - and I mean progressives, not so much the establishment Democrats - sure, we’d have some laws on our books that meant some of the red team wouldn’t get to do things they want to do - like oppress people. Blue team wins and we have social safety nets, protection of human rights. Sure, the Christian nationalists can’t impose the death penalty for abortion of LGBTQ+ people for existing, but I think that’s fair and a Good Thing™. So I’m just saying that while there is team politics, there is also a legitimate difference.

Second, while I also won’t argue that there’s not political theatre with racism, the simple fact is that racism absolutely exists, and lynchings continue into the present time. Sndown cities still exist. Redlining still exists. Systemic racism absolutely exists. And while the Republican party might not be racist, it is also true that the extreme vast majority of racists find a home in the Republican party.

So while I still argue that wealth inequality is still the root of our problems, a lesser root is foreign interference (especially Russia’s influence - they are fighting the second Cold War that we deny exists), and a lesser root is the Christian Nationalism that has taken root in the US as well. There are plenty of other problems, but some of those problems (e.g. Citizens United) are secondary (i.e. the root problem there is wealth inequality).

Some of what you touched on - the inherent problems in our system - can be changed. Seeking wealth is not the problem; rather, allowing wealth to accumulate excessively is. Having rich people is fine if social safety nets mean none go without the basics. The problem is allowing oligarchs to exist. And progressive taxation of wealth is one of the ways to combat that. The more wealth you accumulate, the harder it is to keep amounts over certain amounts. Like how the lowest paid people pay less in federal income taxes, but as you go up that ladder, you pay more - not on the base, but on the excess. Similalry, we don’t make it impossible for, say, millionaires to exist, but we make it extremely difficult for billionairs to exist, and essentially impossible for trillionaires to exist. In the same way that we purport to prevent monopolies, we should prevent what is essentially a monopoly class of extreme wealth.

Of course, there’s also what we can do theoretically, and what we can accomplish practically.

removed, impeached, and condemned.

lol, a rather minor point to make, but it’s impeached and then removed for anyone subject to impeachment. I think the condemnation might have to come before that as leading up to the impeachment, but depends on exactly what’s meant by condemnation.

I’m 99% joking, but 1% serious just because most people apparently don’t understand the impeachment process at all. heh

Vote in the midterms. But then start looking for who to support in the next primaries. Waiting for others to decide then griping about the choices in the genereal election is also how fascism wins. :(

True, although the corollary:

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ‘I know, I’ll use regular expressions.’ Now they have two problems.

Oligarchs are the source of the problem. Citizens United means more money supporting the fascists, and control of almost every media outlet means outright fascist propaganda on the "conservative’ networks, and minimized support for progressives on the “liberal” networks.

Establishment Democrats still give us better returns on human rights compared to the fascists, but they do bow to their oligarchal masters pretty well, yes.

The point is that progressives definitely do not have a majority in the US, much less the supermajority needed to squash fascism.

It’s up to us to deal with our oligarchs and go from there.

Putting aside calling me impotent… :P

They are. They are frustrated. In their worldview, fed to them by the fascists, everything is also wrong. It’s just that they are told that fascism will fix things. I know a lot of them put blind faith in that, but a lot of them also get tired of the repeated lies. The problem is that they are led to believe that both sides lie equally, so they might as well go with the side that panders to their hate and reassures them that they are right and better than everyone else.

I do have some sympathy for them on one level. And frankly, the problem we should face is the oligarchs and Citizens United. If we were able to solve our oligarch problem, we would have to figure out how to properly educate MAGA, becasue frankly, MAGA is also a wedge issue the oligarchs use to divide us.

So while MAGA wants to kill people like me, I view them as victims of propaganda, although they do choose to live in that world as well.

99% of people using office products daily will die

True.

Most of the damage was concentrated in the central provinces of Veraguas, Herrera, Cocle and Los Santos

Grove street. Home. At least it was before that earthquake fucked everything up.

(but seriously, I hope for the best for everyone down there! <3 )

Exactly this - I spend too much time out here; you spend a more appropriate amount of time. :)

I assume most people browse all communities on Lemmy like I do since it’s default. Everything gets posted to mulitple communities, it’s just a thing. I see the most common stuff hit Lemmy like a dozen times.

Nothing particularly wrong with that, it’s just how things work.

That’s why there’s no reasoning with them. They care nothing for truth, logic, consistency, anything.

Ah, haven’t used “applet” in quite some time, but yes, definitely it was (and I support current use) :)