> A fast, distributed and resilient DNS infrastructure that's 100% European.

> dns0.eu is a French non‑profit organization founded in 2022 by Romain Cointepas and Olivier Poitrey — co-founders of NextDNS.

-> https://help.nextdns.io/t/y4hmv0n/who-is-behind-nextdns

> Who is behind NextDNS?

> NextDNS was founded in May 2019 in Delaware, USA by two French founders Romain Cointepas and Olivier Poitrey. Olivier has been working on Internet infrastructures for the last 20 years. In 2005, he founded Dailymotion, the largest video sharing service after Youtube and the most popular European website in the world at the time. He is currently Director of Engineering at Netflix, working on Open Connect, Netflix's home CDN also known as the CDN moving about 30% of the total US Internet traffic. Romain and Olivier closely worked for years at Dailymotion on many different projects. Romain ended up leading the mobile & TV department.

Brain gymnastics at work.

> For example, the biggest country-wide payback program is payback.de, and their most of their coupon multiplier links here – https://www.payback.de/coupons/info – will be clickable, but silently not work after you purchase.

I don't understand this claim. Payback coupons have to be activated before purchase, so even if somehow that link wouldn't work anymore after a purchase it'd be too late anyway to have the coupon applied.

Can you elaborate or provide links for more information?

"primitive solution"

> Thus, rather than submitting articles like the current, rather wait until anything more is available.

How long more to wait?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Are any of them decisive?

We shouldn't need to wait for a _decisive_ study showing that a novel compound is dangerous to consider avoiding the novel compound.

There's rarely profit in demonstrating that novel compounds are dangerous so it's extremely unlikely for a given dangerous novel compound that there will be any decisive studies showing the danger.

IMHO the novel compound should have to be decisively shown to be safe before being sold in food, but since they are not, I recommend everyone avoid novel compounds as much as it's practicable.

I initially reacted to the root comment with why these kinds of articles often receive dismissive comments. HN is mostly not a medical forum so a typical reader reader isn't going to want nor be able to discuss the technicalities - they just want to know whether to avoid a substance or not. As is often the case, the results are inconclusive, hence the dismissals. (And these dismissals as top comments are also useful for the typical reader as they pretty much want a yes/no verdict and move on.)

But to your points, if there aren't any studies which can show that a compound is dangerous in any meaningful way, why would you want to avoid it? (Given there is a need or purpose, e.g, a low-calories sweetener.)

Also, decisively showing something to be safe is impossible in a similar way that software tests can only show that you haven't found any bugs yet, it doesn't mean there are none. (Off-topic: That's a quote from Edsger Dijkstra, which the following can be added: he is right, but for unit tests - using types, property testing or by running through the entire argument space for a pure function you actually can show that there are no bugs.)

"why would you want to avoid it?"

Here's an example. Company A invents compound B and pays company C to do safety studies that monitor the subjects for a few weeks or months. The study shows no significant danger. They start selling compound B in food or as medicine. Then 10 years later after millions of people have ingested varying amounts of compound B, it's found to cause some harm that wasn't found in the initial study. Company A pays a fine of less than the profit they made selling compound B, and compound B is pulled from the market.

There are many stories like that. Should I have avoided compound B on the precautionary principle? Or, because the only science done so far in those first 10 years showed it was safe, should I have considered it safe?

In the case of food additives it's even worse. Company A makes compound B, it's in food, no studies are done, millions of people eat it, are harmed, and no one knows for years or decades.

Personally I think introducing novel compounds to the body is just a bad idea period and I avoid them as much as is practicable. Too many have been found to be dangerous only decades later, and we have a population with rapidly rising rates of chronic disease and cancer etc that could be related to toxic stuff. Why risk it. And especially why trust science that is paid for by the companies that will profit if the science shows their thing to be safe?!

---

There _could_ be ways to show safety of something to a point, like do a 20 (or 50) year study with large cohorts where one population uses compound B and the other doesn't and monitor overall outcomes. But that's far too expensive and time consuming and not required so basically no one does it. Companies want to profit from their novel compounds fast.

Artificial sweeteners replace sugar (as you likely know), so there's a specific reason. But yes, eating any random newly invented molecul for no reason I wouldn't recommend either.

> Because a lot of the time, not everyone is impacted

then such pages should report a partial failure. Indeed the GCP outage page lists an orange "One or more regions affected" marker, but all services show the green "Available" marker, which apparently is not true.

There's always a partial outage in large systems, some very small percentage. All clouds should report all red then.

  $ dig ns joindns4.eu +short
  ns63.cloudns.net.
  ns64.cloudns.uk.
  ns61.cloudns.net.

Additionally, the authoritative DNS servers include domain names with .net, which is under US-American control.

CloudNS is a DNS provider in Bulgaria, offering good and cheap DNS as a service . Still, the project at the moment is just arbitraging and don’t provide own infra,

I would find it more natural when the positions of the AB buttons area was switched with the D-pad area.

Good catch! Unfortunately, we realized a bit too late that we flipped the standard console layout (e.g. Game Boy). Luckily, most people that notice get used to it quickly.

could someone explain the significance of this finding? Is it remarkable for being a definable structure in a previously thought random distribution of bodies that make up the Oort cloud?

reverse image search shows this construction named "viking chair"