Yep, the other workaround that's elsewhere in this thread is to set up an entry with a different authoritative DNS in the hosts file, allowing a single machine to resolve the old domain manually.
This could be part of a greater effort, basically asking other instances to help the users evacuate the instance and transfer their accounts, before running tootctl self-destruct
OP, this title is stupidly misleading and incorrect, you should change it immediately.
The Taliban seized the DOMAIN, aka the ownership of the queer.af name that people could type into their browsers, and their system would resolve into an IP address.
As the Taliban control Afghanistan, (see where the domain comes from), this was inevitable and the instance owners were already planning to retire the instance as they didn't want to give money to the Taliban to keep it up.
The INSTANCE, aka the physical server, was not in Afghanistan, and still has its IP address(es), and so has had absolutely nothing happen to it.
It can also be used to make methamphetamine.
I feel like her reply is just as likely to be to call him a race traitor or whatever. It's hard to reason with people who gatekeep that hard
If the GOP wanted to counterattack, they could always start funding hyper-progressive candidates too 🙂
I'd honestly prefer raw parroting in most cases, even if it's "obviously" wrong. I don't want people selectively interpreting the facts as have been conveyed to them, unless they're prepared to do a proper peer review.
Though btw, I also think it's fascinating the difference if you look up Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" vs Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2MW"
You'll get different articles entirely
I googled Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" and EVERY article covering this has also cited 2 MW.
Now, under Occam's Razor, what's more likely:
I don't know which one it is. But I'd generally lean against 1.
Damn, Steamboat Willie going into public domain really has Disney tightening the purse strings /s
The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.
While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.
NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.
I totally agree, though I wrote this in the context of OPs post specifically saying (emphasis mine):