I’m not sure it was mainly rich folks who suffered. Many small scale investors also lost money. So severe were the losses that something like 25% of private wealth in Scotland was destroyed.
Some argue we are still feeling the effects of this today. It certainly didn’t help with social attitudes towards being miserly with money (which we very much are).
I hate how accurate this is. Imagine you are a UK resident, born and raised, who went to the UK’s top school for CS (4-year degree). You made American friends at university who later moved back home.
15 YOE down the road and you are making $80k as a good senior SWE. You are absolutely bewildered that your American friends who you studied with make comfortably double that.
Could this claim the title of “oldest host on the public internet serving traffic”?
At first I thought “~100 days, so what?” - but that was before I knew this was an 8088 managing to hold up to even just the background noise of the modern net (portscans, etc). It’s surviving being slashdotted by HN. Very impressive.
I wrote about something along these lines a couple of years ago [0] and thought the idea was dead due to rate limiting. But does LE now regard each subdomain as having its own limit, rather than taking that of the parent domain?
Yes. Also, one could quite trivially turn the driver’s seat and steering column 180 degrees in the UK model, yielding the benefits you mention, as well as that of facing the direction of travel in reverse gear.
Like I said, views are changing in light of events, but let’s not pretend this was the settled majority view since 1945 or 1990. That’s the point: there has been a presumption by America that their view is the only view over the long term, leading to European perceptions that the US takes an arrogant view of their defence spending.
I would agree that the worldview of Europe is changing, given the sharp reality of its defences being tested.
Europe is of course (to state the extremely obvious) no stranger to its own imperial adventures. We might do well to stop that if we don’t want to trigger refugee flows and other outcomes we don’t want.
Quite, and the reality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine certainly trumps armchair rhetoric on this topic. I would only add that (until recently) many Europeans would have questioned whether their aggression exists in a vacuum (“are we provoking them?”). But that sort of navel gazing vanishes when artillery is fired in your direction.
There was a deep-seated aversion to rearmament owing to the memory of the Second World War, which is fading away, cajoled by events in Ukraine.
> Another point I’d like to make is that modern European lifestyles exist partly due to American military hegemony, which has allowed European nations to redirect their defense spending to social programs.
I see Americans make this comment a lot. Putting aside whether or not it is true that it enables higher domestic social spending, the comment never seems to come with the realisation that many Europeans deride the “need” for higher defence spending. This is due to Europeans’ perception that American military adventurism is what creates the instability from which Europe requires American protection in the first place.
Many Europeans will say: “America, please stop bombing the mideast or continuously expanding NATO; this will stop creating problems that result in you demanding we spend more.”
In other words, many Americans presuppose the validity of their military adventurism and assume Europeans agree with it, and thus think they should want to participate in funding the defence of blowback from it.
By contrast, many Europeans would rather America did not try to play global policeman, or if it’s going to do so, then happily accept paying for European defence as the price of Pax Americana / US hegemony.
I’m no expert, but I wonder what the long-term socioeconomic effects are of Sweden not having been involved in major wars or colonial empires for hundreds of years.
Sitting atop the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, accumulated over decades of judicious management of national oil wealth, perhaps insulates Norway from realities that apply elsewhere.
Thanks for your comments - my goal with the writeup was to attempt to sound out why the idea of ".nonpublic" would or would not work, and I think it's clear that it's not really viable. That's a pity, as the current state of affairs isn't great. It was interesting to explore though.
Right, so it would be necessary to force the NS records to point to registrar-owned nameservers which would be the point of enforcement. This is of course bad for a variety of reasons, not least how convention-violating it is.