I hope whoever is running na.me (the domain registration was renewed a month ago) is preparing to register domains like joe.random.na.me if you can demonstrate a registration of joe.random.name, for an affordable amount.
> Going to post it here in case someone several years from now comes to this thread and wants to read the original blog post.
I wouldn't count on short-links living long. Generally, the point of link-shortening is that they're temporary. "zi6qn" might later get reused for some other page.
So is archive.org. They take down articles when journalists ask them too and block legal sites from being archived. It is more likely for archive.org to take down or make inaccessible a piece of content than archive.is.
> They take down articles when journalists ask them too
They take them down when their respective author / copyright holder wants them down. That wouldn't apply in this case where the author wants them up, but a DNS infrastructure might cause the links to fail.
I was contesting the claim that archive.org wants to preserve material. It's hard to trust that an archive will preserve the page you archived if the owner can come along at any time and wipe it. Some people want an immutable copy of a page that they can reference in case it gets changed or taken down in the future.
>Not sure what this refers to.
For example you can't even see 4chan's homepage. For such a notable site in internet history, it is a shame that it is not publicly archived by them.
> I was contesting the claim that archive.org wants to preserve material. It's hard to trust that an archive will preserve the page you archived if the owner can come along at any time and wipe it. Some people want an immutable copy of a page that they can reference in case it gets changed or taken down in the future.
You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sure, archive.org may not meet your perfect definition of an archive, but it does see itself as an archive that's preserving things for the future. My understanding is archive.is explicitly rejects that role (e.g. IIRC, they make silent changes to pages, their ownership is opaque, and they reserve the right to just disappear without a trace tomorrow).
> Yes, the word “archive” in the title is misleading. The main purpose is to hold up ephemeral web pages for latecomers. Shots taken more than a few days ago have almost no visits.
There is one documented case of this and it was in response to harassment. My usage of archival doesn't involve me harassing the person who is graciously offering that service to me so it is outside of my threat model. This is actually a case of letting perfect be the enemy of good. I frequently archive posts where the owner may want them to be removed so what archive.org allows is against my threat model against the archive. They are not the same.
>they reserve the right to just disappear without a trace tomorrow
I already gave you an example of how they made the archive of 4chan disappear out of the blue with no warning. Archive.org is no better in this respect of archives going away with no warning.
Archive.org also can randomly lock your account and delete all of the stuff you archived with no way to appeal. An organization that actually cared about preserving things wouldn't be so haphazard with the collateral damage of deleting everything from users. The site cannot be trusted for long term preservation of data.
Ultimately everything is temporary so if you really care about backing something up you should do it yourself. I believe both these sites do give you a download option to save the pages locally.
> For example you can't even see 4chan's homepage.
That's likely the same thing, the 4chan admins asking IA to omit them.
> I was contesting the claim that archive.org wants to preserve material. It's hard to trust that an archive will preserve the page you archived if the owner can come along at any time and wipe it.
Being able to preserve material depends on their surviving.
Modern PCIe NVME drives typically see a few microsecond latency, but even DDR2 latency was around 10 nanoseconds. Memory remains top dog by a long shot.
> Tax dollars don't fund the government. The government funds the government. That's what "Fiat currency" means.
There was $4.9 trillion in revenue and $6.8 trillion in outlays in 2024 [1]. 95% of that revenue was from taxes. In spite of the high deficit, it remains a true statement that the federal government is funded by taxes as they account for the majority of funding.
The money would be spent regardless of what is collected through taxes. It's not as though taxpayer money goes into a gigantic bag in the treasury, and then those same dollars get pulled out to fund public spending until the bag is empty.
Commercial natural gas usage in NYC is roughly 40% of non-power generation natural gas usage. The actual proportion varies greatly depending on time of year, presumably due to natural gas heating in residential properties in colder months.
reply