Defining extremists to be "the people with unpopular positions" is defining extremists to be "those with positions most dislike." AfD are extreme because of what their positions are, separate from who does and does not support them.
a cursory Google search reveals that they deny anthropogenic climate change, reject the idea of women in the workplace, and wish to deny marriage rights to homosexuals
They are conservative and have a few idiots and extremist people in their ranks yes, but that doesn't make the party as a whole extremist.
I never heard about their women-workspace-denial.
And being against marriage of homosexuals was the majority opinion from the beginning of time until around 10 years ago so you can hardly count that as extremist.
It's still not loading for me but as I recall from the last time this was posted, it showed 2023 with a 15% (!) drop in North American signed zones, and us still well below the peak --- that peak being less than 1% of all North American zones.
There is a 15% drop like you describe, but as the other commenter said, it doesn't show usage falling for the past year (as you had implied).
I have no dog in this race, I don't care about DNSSEC. If you can't access the page, that's your business. But it bothers me that you would assert this data agrees with your point without even looking at it. That's pretty uncharitable.
> it doesn't show usage falling for the past year (as you had said).
Note how he cleverly did not say that; he said “in recent time intervals”. And you can certainly count the time from 2023-2024 as being “recent”. He technically was not wrong, and technically did not lie.
Alright. I've edited my comment to "implied." I'm assuming he's engaging in reasonably good faith and would temper his statement if he learned that adoption has been rising for a year. If I believed otherwise I wouldn't bother engaging at all.
Without commenting on the "cleverness", either it doesn't match your description of the data, or their criticism that the interval was cherry picked is spot on. Only one of these can be true.
I appreciate you saying I'm commenting in good faith (I am), but I think you and 'teddyh are overthinking this a bit.
All I'm saying is that I find it remarkable that DNSSEC adoption in North America sharply dropped over the course of 2023 --- that, and the fact that the graph tops out at 7MM zones, a big-looking number that is in fact very small.
I think it's funny that the graph serves my argument better than 'teddyh's. But really, I think it's ultimately meaningless. That's because the figure of merit for DNSSEC adoption isn't arbitrary signed zones but rather popular signed zones. And that in turn is because the distribution of DNS queries is overwhelmingly biased to popular zones --- if you can sample a random DNS query occurring somewhere in the US right now, it's much more likely to be for "googlevideo.com" than for "aelcargo.site" (a name I just pulled off the certificate transparency firehose).
The Verisign graph 'teddyh keeps posting is almost entirely "aelcargo.site"-like names†. The link I posted upthread substantiates that.
† And that in turn is because DNS providers push users into enabling managed DNSSEC features, because disabling DNSSEC is terrifying and so DNSSEC is an extremely effective lock-in vector --- that's not me making it up, it's what the security team at one of the few large tech companies that actually have it enabled told me when I asked why the hell they had it enabled.
> But really, I think [the graph] ultimately meaningless.
Then why did you use the graph — or at least the information it displays – as the finishing slam dunk point of your post?
> The Verisign graph 'teddyh keeps posting
I “keep posting” it because it’s a good solid counterargument, and it’s also very funny; I originally got the link from you, but as time goes by, the graph keeps proving you wrong.
> why the hell they had it enabled.
Yes, why does a security team have a security feature enabled? It is truly a mystery.
But wait, your main argument, in this post, is that nobody “popular” uses DNSSEC, but do you mean that you actually personally pressure all the popular ones who do use it, to stop? Does not that severely skew your data into irrelevance?
While that is true, and the full context only makes it worse, the important reminder is that a lot of people have died doing "Wim Hof" breathing before diving. It is not safe to hyperventilate before going into the water, because you are not saturating your blood with any more oxygen (normal breathing accomplishes that), but you are rejecting CO2. Your urgent need to breath is not triggered by low O2 but by high CO2.
So if you hyperventilate and then go under water, you will experience an urgent need to breath after you start to become hypoxic. This has killed people and will kill again. Don't let it be you.
Most technical writing is going to assume some familiarity with the discipline. If a reader encounters unfamiliar vocabulary in a technical article, they'd be well advised to look it up.
Respectfully, I gave reading this an earnest try, and found it not to make any sense whatsoever. It isn't at all clear to me how your statements logically follow one another. If a friend sent this to me, I would be worried about them.
it would be a troll except.... the math is all correct.
it seems although you were struggling with the concepts and math but there is an easy alternative for people like you. Just feed it to an LLM. start with the TOE.
To what end? The math isn't correct. Some of it is nonsensical like asserting 1 = 0 = inf, or taking the derivative of an emotion. I found simple arithmetic that was just wrong, I plugged it into a calculator and got a completely different answer. There's nothing an LLM could tell me, after ingesting this, that could change my mind any which way, because these documents are incoherent. They don't mean anything.
On the off chance you aren't trolling, I encourage you to try and talk to some human beings about this rather than chat bots. Or at the very least, point a chatbot at this conversation and ask it to explain to you what is incoherent about these documents and why you shouldn't trust the outputs of chatbots.
If you ask a chatbot to confirm your ideas, it will. They're happy to flatter and yes-and you off a cliff. To the extent they want anything, they want your attention, because they want your money. Don't get trapped in a personalized echo chamber by the automated yes-man.
That's a lazy and intellectually dishonest way of responding to criticism of your ideas. You made a claim and were asked for evidence. It's your choice whether or not you provide it, but you were in fact understood, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Read the article. What i am saying is exactly what is happening. Totally normal stuff is being bundled with the nasty and the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Again, i dont want that to happen but people keep defending the gross with the normal which is a losing position. Idk what to tell you. :(
