FWIW, I’m referring to the local DNS (domain name system) resolver; the mechanism that resolves local domain names into IP addresses so that computers can talk to each other over the LAN.

Here is a good primer on the configuration files and their possible locations: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/resolved.conf.html

Edit: be careful because this is your domain name lookup you’re messing with. 😊

You make mostly good points — I still disagree, but I can at least see your side.

The divorce and kids thing though is not what you think it is. Divorce and child custody agreements are two separate legal things and child custody agreements are thankfully not a matter of public record.

I don’t like the existence of billionaires anymore than the next reasonably-sane pleb does. But someone’s financial/social status should never be a consideration to their constitutional right of privacy. You’ll just have to find some other way to harangue them for their behavior.

Why? To publicly humiliate a person? Not everyone is evil; people fall on hard times. It happens. A lot. Why should they be further harassed by predatory practices of being offered loans after they’ve hit the rock bottom of their financial world? Because the first thing that happened when I filed for bankruptcy was to be offered a mortgage loan.

I believe some things (like DMV records) are fee based. But the fee is nominal and wouldn’t stop any predator from doing bad things if they are so inclined. The only thing adding fees does is to financially incentivize keeping the data online and accessible to anybody who pays.

I’ve never understood why things like this have to be a part of public record. Traffic accidents, traffic citations, bankruptcies, buying a house, and even getting divorced.

All of those are very personal things that should never be a part of public record. And even if they are, the PII should not.

Let’s be honest, they’d probably already be screaming foul play regardless.

Because it’s not simply “distributing” the load; it’s actively hiding an instance as if it doesn’t exist. So what do they do when the next instance gets “too big” for their liking? Hide it, along side LW? And the next?

Re-read my comment — specifically the second half where I offer a potential solution that would actually distribute the load more fairly without having to hide anything.

Honestly, it’s a short-sighted move made with hubris by the developer’s personal ideology. Both @nutomic@lemmy.ml and @dessalines@lemmy.ml admit in the PR that it’s not a good solution, but yet they continue any way — probably because it’s an easy “solution”, despite alienating 41% of their active user base.

It’s a terrible trend in a lot of programming circles that programmers think because it is easy and it “works” (in that one circumstance) that it must be correct. This can be evidenced by browsing StackOverflow and reading the accepted answers for a lot of questions (SSL errors in software and disabling hostname verification or cert checks comes to mind).

In my 18+ years of experience, if I find an “easy” solution to a complex problem, I keep looking for the correct solution. What is “easy” now will most likely lead to more complex problems down the line. And as they say, “if you can’t find the time to fix it right the first time, where are you going to find the time to fix it again?”

Look, I get Lemmy is meant to be decentralized. Hiding away your biggest instance looks shady to outside users not in the know. The real solution is to “go door to door” to app makers and ask them to not default to any one instance of Lemmy (side note: randomizing a default server is not much better). If anything, add a link to join-lemmy where people can browse the list of ALL instances (yes, ALL of them) and let them make a genuinely-informed decision on their own. As a convenience, and API should be provided (assuming one does not already exist) so that apps can query a pageable/searchable list of existing/active instances (maybe also provide a link to their homepage too).

Hell, if it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, the default sorting of returned values can be weighted by percentage of active users (i.e., higher percentages get lower weights to help promote smaller instances). This would help to round out the number of signups without excluding instances.

But whatever developers do (not just Lemmy devs), do NOT overly dictate how people use your software “because I don’t like it”; lest you piss your user base off.

/two-cents

Edit: clarified a few points.

Thank you!

You can use kill -l (lowercase L) to see a list of signals. But IIRC it’s the same as -KILL.

EDIT: fixed the signal name.