This is to a large part to give Egypt plausible deniability. They don’t want to deal with Gaza, refugees, or a humanitarian crisis, but also don’t want the political fallout of taking action like the Israelis do.
On the contrary, I believe Israel would be delighted. It would lessen the humanitarian burden on them, and force Egypt to deal with the Hamas problem more directly. It will never happen, though. No Arab country will "throw the gates wide open" for Palestinians. They have done so before, several times, and it went very badly.
The Israeli openly proposed for the Gaza Palestinians to move to Egypt (effectively ethnic cleansing Gaza, their obvious goal), not that long after 7.10.
Egypt said 'HELL NO', first, because they don't want to deal with Palestinians (both political and economic nightmare), and second because it would have been viewed as ceding to Israelis and helping them cleanse Gaza, which would be highly unpopular among their population.
Israel would object to aid and weapons flows into Gaza. It would be fine with Gazans leaving the Strip. The problem is there are currently zero takers globally for a significant Palestinian refugee population, in part, as other comments have mentioned, due to the history of Palestinian refugee populations in the Middle East. (To my knowledge, Palestinian Americans have been fine and productive members of society.)
More like refugees flowing out, which Egypt doesn't want to deal with.
The Palestinians didn't help their cause with Yasser Arafat's Black September uprising in Jordan. Then they topped that up with strong support for Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Like the ones in Kuwait were literally betraying Kuwaitis to the Iraqi troops.
Oh, and did I forget Lebanon? They literally fomented the civil war.
Defense of Israel was the primary justification offered in a recent State department memo asserting the legal basis for the war with Iran. Unusually, its publication was not announced on social media or to the press, unlike most state department official pronouncements. Anyway, rather than being opinion, this is (for the present) the official position of the United States government.
The US has been doing air strikes in the Middle East on a regular basis since ~1990, and they extensively support the military adventures of allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
People get tied to their registrar by using their DNS or other services. It's a mistake, but it's extremely common.
So if you have someone using GoDaddy, and everything is working, how do you sell them on the idea of migrating DNS or hosting or email if they've never had an issue?
There's been a story a few years ago that GoDaddy was blacklisting entire countries not only from their own website, but also from the DNS provided to their customers.
So, at a minimum, your website and email may not work worldwide if you're using the DNS disservice of GoDaddy.
I would NEVER use GoDaddy as a registrar, but if somehow that was a necessity, I would 100% NEVER use their DNS.
It does sound snarky, maybe GoDaddy was the cheaper option at one point and they stuck with it. I get that.
I use some square space for a lot of stuff, but it's largely because Google Domains sold out and the price is "fine." Sure, I could use something else, but this works, the cost is correct, and - I can't stress this enough - it already freaking works. I also use a python as a service tool I point at frequently. Their customer service is great, so I doubt this would ever happen there? But yeah, I'm not manually configuring a server somewhere most of the time.
Is it the "best" possible tool for the job? Not really, but it works well enough for the stuff I use and my workflows are already rock solid to deploy code to prod, etc. Is it because it's impossible for me to spin up a VPS or I'm too stupid to figure out Hetzner? Probably. But no, I've done it before, I could do it again, but that would take me X hours that I'm not getting paid for to migrate for limited utility, possible customer interruptions, and stress. I might need to migrate in a year or so, but until then, I'm not going to bother.
I reckon that's a similar sort of thing that happened here and depending on what they're doing business-wise, Lee could be insanely competent IT person and was just unlucky because the hammer he reached out for with GoDaddy actually turned out to be a foot gun that took years to fire.
It happens, it's not ideal, but it happens - I'm just glad they got it figured out and I'm glad that these sorts of events percolate up in the hn zeitgeist, because I definitely know who I won't be turning to in the future. Like, I kind of already knew GoDaddy was trash? I used them something like 10 years ago to spool up a website for a friend of mine. The whole experience was garbage then and I said, "never again" - but also that was kind of at the beginning of me even learning about how this stuff works? But I could totally see a scenario where I get snared into a product ecosystem and the opportunity cost of switching out of it outweighs staying put until it blows up in my face.
I was in the Google Domain sold to Squarespace boat too. To this day, that sale makes zero sense, mind boggling they would offload such a critical part of consumer infrastructure. Anyway, I had zero trust in Squarespace, so I spent some time and moved all my domains to Cloudflare and couldn’t be happier. Lots of nice bonus features also popped up.
Read every alternative volunteered here. Imagine any world where in the next 5 years they can't be enshittified, sold to a predatory private equity, their support lines AI-ified, their headcount reduced by 40% without your knowledge, etc etc. 27 years is a very long time.
A competent IT person can have a backup plan for every expected failure. They can't control registrar level screw ups.
Companies explicitly selling you "bulletproof domains" like MarkMonitor have screwed up big time.
Also as an IT guy, asking to register a new domain with X is much easier than asking to transfer a long held domain away from Y.
CloudFlare since they sell domains at cost and have really good DNS infrastructure with some free protection features. If the TLD isn't supported by them for registration then I'd just use their nameservers.
Or Route53 if you're using AWS since that makes it easier to integrate with the rest of AWS and manage in IaC, and AWS also has robust network/DNS infrastructure.
(I would say GCP if using GCP/Google Workspace, too, but since they split domains off to Squarespace I really don't know what is happening over there anymore as far as domains go.)
So far those 3 have been more than sufficient for all of my domain needs.
Domain registration and all other services should be separate. You don't want DNS, web hosting, mail hosting, etc. ToS applied to your registrar account because it increases the risk of the account getting locked.
I haven't had that experience at all with them before. I also don't put much stock in one off experiences from someone who is admittedly not in a situation that almost anyone else, much less someone registering their domains through GoDaddy currently, would find themselves in (i.e. operating an online casino and engaging in behavior that is very obviously a legal/ToS gray area at best).
They specialize in domains management for businesses who consider their domain to be _very_ important. Think Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Wikipedia... (all of those are listed as clients on the wiki page)
As in "pay a lot of money", and we'll dedicate someone to your domain who makes sure that "giving a domain to a stranger without any documents" will _never_ happen.
a number of the largest companies that used to be 'clients' of markmonitor have now basically become their own domain registrars and have a direct relationship with ICANN. Amazon for instance. It's curious that google was one and has offloaded it to squarespace.
I'm pretty sure google never used them for their own domains, and the whole markmonitor/squarespace thing was their "google domains" product where they sold registrar services to others. Besides that they also are a registry for .app/.dev and others, but don't sell them via their own registrar anymore.
See other sibling comments to yours, but you basically have named support contacts who would have been the human-in-the-loop ensuring that a situation like OP's can't happen.
I haven't spoken to them in like a decade, but they also offered other monitoring stuff like notifying you of likely phishing registrations, etc. And it's no longer novel now with options like Route53, but they used to be one of the only solutions with proper RBAC/delegation/audit logs.
Namecheap has had its own host of issues like a few years back breaking hsts and causing tons of sites to break for quite a while and their response was basically oh well. That incident along made me move my domains off to porkbun.
Realistically you should never use the registrars dns to begin with. But you can set your own dns with porkbun, I have customs dns on all of my domains. I especially have been doing that since the Namecheap hsts issue. Can't trust any of them.
GoDaddy is a valid domain registrar. The customer had dual MFA set up. The customer did all the right things.
I’ve never heard of Godaddy making this kind of egregious mistake before. I’ve heard of some doozies, sure, but nothing like this.
Don’t blame the victim. “It’s their fault they got robbed, they left their door unlocked” is not a valid response to a situation like that or like this. The robber still stole, and godaddy still broke their own rules, rules that customers pay to have enforced.
When you find yourself victim-blaming, you will find yourself on the wrong side.
Maybe you havent, but I and others certainly have heard of this kind of "mistake" aplenty from them. They're infamously bad for this kind of nonsense let alone their other more predatory practices such as frontrunning domain registrations.
Yes, Tasmanians are the best example that comes to mind. They had a mythology developed around lightning and subsequent fires and would then try to keep a fire going as long as possible.
There are still ISA slots in new systems with fairly modern processors and plenty of RAM, if you don’t mind buying specific models of industrial PCs for way too much money.
Or maybe you need 4 PCI and 9 ISA for some reason. DuroPC’s got you, if you can drop $1800 on a system with the same generation of processor. https://duropc.com/product/r810-4p9i-4
This is what the word "bus" used to mean on a hardware level: a backplane of connections to which multiple peripherals could be attached. These days a bus is a LAN of point-to-point serial connections which, it turns out, is much more viable at the high communication rates demanded of modern hardware.
You don't really need IRQs for most ISA boards. OPL3/Adlib sound cards don't need one, MIDI doesn't, joystick port doesn't. I saw various I/O boards that don't need IRQ. Soundblaster does, but I don't know for what purpose. Maybe someone here can explain?
Coincidentally I'm currently working on a Sound Blaster driver for some DOS homebrew, so here's quick rundown of how an SB is programmed and what its resources do:
Base Address: This is the beginning of the IO port range you use to program the card, commonly it's 0x220, but can be configured with jumpers (or software on later cards). You can add offsets to this address to access different functionality of the card, such as the OPL chip or the Mixer chip.
IRQ: The interrupt number that will be fired when the soundcard finishes playback of an audio chunk. Early cards usually used 7, later models defaulting to 5. More on this below.
DMA Channel: Which channel of the PC's DMA controller will be supplying audio data to the card. Usually 1 for 8-bit cards, with 5 being used for 16-bit cards.
The general process for playback is as follows:
- Program the DMA controller with the address and size of an audio buffer you'll be using to mix your PCM sound into. This buffer will conventionally be used in 2 halves by the interrupt service routine, a front buffer and backbuffer, similar to what you'd have for double buffered video. The DMA channel should also be put in "auto-init" mode so that the DMA transfer will loop back to the start when it finishes, which allows continuous playback.
- Install an interrupt service routine to write data into the "backbuffer" half of the DMA buffer, which switches back and forth each time an IRQ fires.
- Initialize the DSP chip via its IO port, pick a sample rate (usually around 11khz for most DOS games), then issue a continuous playback command. For this part, you tell the soundcard that your playback buffer is half the size it actually is, which causes the IRQ to fire once in the middle of the buffer, and again at the end of the buffer before looping back to the start. These halfway IRQs allow you to fill the unused half of the buffer while the other half is playing, for smooth gapless playback with no clicks or pops.
This is probably more info than you or anyone actually wanted, but it's a fun topic so I couldn't help myself.
388h is indeed the original adlib base port. Most sound cards that feature an OPL chip will also monitor reads/writes to this port for backward compatibility with older software, but the FM chip is also addressable from a base port offset.
Incidentally, the DSP isn't actually at 220h, it's at 22a/22ch. How the ports are mapped exactly depends on which sound blaster model you have. What's actually at 220h on older cards is the old CMS chips, while the OPL2 is at 228/229h. As CMS chips fell out of use and later cards featured dual OPL2 or an OPL3 chip, 220h-223h were repurposed for FM writes also, which means you can access the OPL chip from a grand total of 3 different IO ports.
Interestingly, cards with dual OPL2 chips would often be designed such that writes to 388h would actually go to both FM chips instead of just one, so that you still get proper mono sound, otherwise it would be panned hard left.
Sound Blasters and compatible cards used IRQ lines because back in the bad old days CPUs were slow, bandwidth was tiny, and buffers were minuscule.
To get responsive/real time audio the card needs to signal to the CPU, not the other way around, and at the time IRQs were the way to do that on ISA busses.
I would imagine that ISA cards that didn't need IRQs either required CPU polling or DMA.
I imagined that the game / audio driver would just send data to the card at regular intervals and that's it. I realize now that the card uses it's own clock that can drift when compared to the system timer and this method would have a buffer underrun/overrun problem.
In original ISA none of this is managed, the owner of the PC is expected to manually configure both hardware and software appropriately.
So e.g. [with the PC turned off!] you move a tiny jumper (basically just a piece of conductive metal with a plastic housing) to the "IRQ 8" position and you pick "IRQ 8" in some menu or set it in an environment variable in DOS or whatever.
By the time PCI is starting to appear there is some level of "Plug and Plug ISA" but it's fairly crazy because of course all the old stuff still exists whereas for PCI the bus always had this intelligence baked in so nobody just assumes they can pick.
That's correct. I considered whether I should dig out a manual and decided that I should do the exact opposite and pick a value I know won't exist for ISA.
To avoid collisions, you moved physical jumpers on cards that might conflict, to select among a small range of addresses, I/O ports and/or IRQ numbers.
For example if you had two identical network cards, or SCSI disk controllers, you would need to physically reconfigure one of them away from its defaults.
There were only a small number of configurations available on each type of device, and some weren't configurable at all, so you could still get irreconcilable conflicts.
The Linux kernel of the time was full of hard-coded "probe" addresses and I/O ports, probe sequences to see if there was a device there, and IRQ auto-detection routines that triggered an interrupt to find out which IRQ line was asserted. Some of the probes had to be run in a particular order, so that probes for one type of device wouldn't break another type.
Later came ISAPnP, meaning Plug'n'Play for ISA, which allowed the operating system to use a clever protocol to talk simultaneously over ISA with all devices on the bus that support it, identify and select them individually, query what they required and and configure their addresses, I/O ports and IRQs to avoid overlap, or permit overlap where it was ok for IRQs. After the operating system was done configuring them, they operated as if they were configured physically like the older ISA cards. If necessary this could be implemented cheaply by adding an ISAPnP module to an existing ISA card design.
Eventually ISA was superceded by PCI which had better, well-defined enumeration and configuration methods from the start which all devices had to implement. PCI also allowed MMIO and IO base addresses to be set anywhere (32-bit), not just a small number or single option as ISA cards usually had, so there were no more address conflicts. The operating system still had to find the PCI bus registers itself, but after that, probing was simpler and more reliable than with ISA.
USB also arrived around the same time, and also had well-defined enumeration and configuration methods. Many simpler ISA devices were replaced by equivalent USB devices. Although USB was (and is) complex to implement at a low level, the complexity was handled very well by low-cost, generic USB modules on the device side, so it was easy for device manufacturers to use.
There's a shared address bus. Each device responds to the i/o and/or memory addresses it's configured for. Configuration can be static, jumpers, isapnp.
> I assume it’s a master and slave system, but even then were address collisions automatically resolved?
No. If two devices want to use the same address space, you'll have problems. isapnp might help you out, but it was added in the second decade of ISA, so ... lots of things don't use it.
All cards receive the same signals (address lines, data lines, IRQ lines and everything else). They just ignore all data for addresses (on address lines) that are not theirs.
Each card must have a unique I/O address, sometimes more than one and sometimes an IRQ and DMA too. For example, Soundblaster cards had an OPL3/Adlib/FM synth chip at address 388h (it's fixed, you can't have two in the same system, or maybe you can and they would play the same tune, I don't know...), the main chip (wave playback and recording) at 220h or 240h configurable by a jumper, IRQ 2, 5, 7 or 9 (two jumpers), a MIDI port at 300h or 330h (another jumper), two DMA channels (another 4 jumpers), and an IDE port (2 more jumpers).
When you install the card, you set those jumpers according to the manual and what other cards you have installed and their addresses, so that there are no conflicts. Then you add the "SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 H7 T6 P330" to AUTOEXEC.BAT so that the games know where in memory to read/write the data so that it reaches the correct card.
Then, PnP was invented, because changing those jumpers and avoiding conflicts was very hard, as you can imagine.
On a PnP system, you would enter the BIOS setup and reserve the IRQs of any non-PnP cards you may have, so that they are not auto-assigned to PnP cards. I/O addresses are managed automatically.
The ISA PnP initialization process is actually very interesting:
All the ISA PnP cards power up in a disabled state. They all respond only to a specific address reserved for PnP initialization. Each card has a unique serial number written at factory. The BIOS scans for serial numbers, not by brute force (that would take too long), but bit by bit.
Let's say there are 3 cards:
A: 010...
B: 011...
C: 100...
BIOS sends an "init command" to the reserverd initialization address. All cards enter selection process.
BIOS asks for bit 0 of the serial number. Cards A and B pull down the line for bit 0. ISA lines are normally pulled-up by the chipset when receiving data from the cards. The BIOS remembers "0". Card C notices that the line is down, in conflict with it's own bit (has "1") and disables itself until the next init command.
BIOS asks for bit 1. No cards pull down the line, both A and B have "1". BIOS adds a "1" to the serial number (now "01").
BIOS asks for bit 2. Card A pulls down the line. BIOS remembers "010". Card B is in conflict and disables itself.
Continue until the last bit. Only card A remains active. For each bit, it either pulls down the line and the BIOS adds a "0" or no response and BIOS adds a "1". There can't be any more conflicts to disable it, since card A is the only one remaining. When the BIOS reaches the last bit, only one card can remain, no matter how many were initially active.
The BIOS then asks for config requirements, and the only remaining active card answers. BIOS configures it with bus addresses, IRQs, DMAs, etc.
BIOS sends the "init command" again. Card A now has specific addresses configured and will ignore the reserved init address. Only cards B and C enter the selection process.
BIOS asks for bit 0. Card B pulls down the line. Card C is in conflict and disables itself. Card B remains the only one active and will be configured.
Repeat the process and configure remaining card C.
At the end, when no more cards remain. Serial number scan returns "1111111..." - no cards to pull down any lines. It means the scan is finished.
Plastics and rubbers tend to not survive well a lot of the time just because of the chemistry. There's really no way around plastic embrittlement and rubber decomposing. You can prolong it with the right storage conditions, but those molecules are gonna break down sooner or later.
I don't know how you'd confirm either way. A lot of stuff from the 80s is in landfill now because it's just old, even if not broken.
I'm sure we built a lot of badly made stuff then too, but my guess is with our tighter manufacturing tolerances, we can push things closer to breaking point, with our increased casting/molding tech, we make stuff smaller and more complex, so it breaks more, we also drive harder to profit margins (unsourced claim!) so cutting corners/quality is more acceptable/planned obsolescence/planned failure.
Exactly. And the same is true of the judicial system btw, who must stay separate from other powers, meaning that it also has to police itself, which can create its own issues.
These are just the (little) costs of democracy. If you aren’t ready to pay them, you haven’t really considered the alternatives.
The productivity gains from fancier computers haven’t accrued to workers either.
reply