EDIT: and the movies are pretty faithful to the comic books.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/oct/28/robert-downey-j...
"In 2022, Iron Man screenwriter Mark Fergus confirmed that Musk had partly inspired the screen version of the Marvel hero, as both men share tech prowess, arrogance and a short fuse. He told New York magazine that Stark was as if “Musk took the brilliance of [Steve] Jobs with the showmanship of [Donald] Trump,” adding: “He was the only one who had the fun factor and the celebrity vibe and actual business substance.”"
Edit: I'm not quite sure why Musk was brought up unprompted though, made it seem like he has something to do with this company, but it doesn't seem like that's the case?
He was literally in the middle of his 13-year run on Network tv. If he hadn't won the presidency, that would be talked about as the apex of his time as a public figure.
And, having been a kid at the time, I remember excitedly talking with friends about how Elon Musk was the real life Tony Stark. We were young enough to be insulated from his controveries, and to not truly appreciate how impossible the Iron Man suit was.
A "bulletproof" host or provider is the colloquial term for a business that will not reveal your identity, payment information, provide LEO access, respond to subpoenas, etc.
It's generally used by cyber-criminals as a "safe" vendor, though some privacy-minded individuals like this type of provider as well.
Those poor astronauts! ("Law Enforcement Officer", for anyone else not in the know).
Well, that countries law enforcement could always cut off those servers. It's usually either due to corruption or in case of russia political intent that these servers are kept online.
obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1053/ Happy ten thousand day!
Others already answered but while I'm chiming in anyway, I'm not in the hosting industry but IT security (for like ten years, say) and for me it's a very normal term. Maybe precisely because of that niche though; many of us are paranoid
I'm sure they are enjoying the rubles. And that they know that polonium-210 is not detectable with Geiger counters.
The EU tries to rope off a single building with velvet ropes, a doorman, ID verification, facial scans, and cookie banners, while next door it's an illegal rave in an abandoned supermarket.
The real issue is that there aren't a whole lot of consequences when it comes to tracking data. It's a legal violation, sure, but it's not a criminal violation. So it would be up to you to pursue it. In many countries you can't even file a civil lawsuit, but rather, you have to go through your national data protection agency. Which in reality likely means your complaint will be auto-rejected after five years because they need to clean up the queue.
As far as the malicious disobedience goes... well... it's probably because "all the other website do it", but you might as well just give people the option to go to a setting to turn it off. It's not like that would be any less of a legal violation than the banner.
Don't know if it was intentionally positioned like that but I was ready to imagine it was.
I do wonder what would have happened if the laws were in place first. Would people have been so willing to add all this stuff if it meant putting a big thing over the entire shop?
My other consideration is whether if the owners had to use their site like new customers every time if they'd get pissed off about the stuff covering their actual shops.
In either case, I think the net result is bad news for users, good news for people selling things. And of course the sprinkle of "people just making mistakes/guesses" too, but there's no universe that's not going to be found.
They didn't want user data to be sent to third-parties without consent, so they created a law that made it mandatory for web pages to ask for consent to send the data. Most web pages need to send data to third-parties to be profitable, so they need to ask for consent.
What would the next steps be like? The purpose of the law is to give users the power to consent or not consent. In other words, I can pay for the contents of a web page with my data. Removing that option from me doesn't give me power to do whatever I want with my data: it takes that power away from me instead. That would be bad.
Is that true? If so, it's a sad state of affairs.
The EU's own government websites are littered with the obnoxious cookie banners [1].
It's an unbelievably thoughtless and misguided law that has unfortunately ruined the internet. I think a lot of people rightfully blame the EU and they're terrible lawmaking for this nonsense.
Because it is not the means, it is the intent that the GDPR tries to protect you from. The GDPR (and EDP) says that tracking, any tracking not just cookies, requires the consent of the tracked one.
https://www.swedbank-aktiellt.se/telegram/WOzsdcJG
"AMSTERDAM, April 10, 2025
MIRhosting, a leading provider of enterprise-grade colocation and IT infrastructure services in Europe, proudly announces the launch of two dedicated, fully equipped data rooms at its newest location within the NorthC data center in Nieuwegein. This strategic expansion strengthens MIRhosting's colocation capabilities, directly addressing the growing demand for reliable and scalable colocation solutions in the greater Amsterdam region...."
they think they're omnipotent but really don't control the world, rendering economic sanctions and service blacklisting to be null and moot
They are also UpStream of several other provider. For example https://bgp.he.net/AS215540#_prefixes
I have not seen legitimate single request from ANY ip in this. Only spam bot and brute.
Blanket IP bans should have died back in 00s, where they belong. Instead, we still get wannabe webmasters applying them willy-nilly - with gatekeepers like Cloudflare enabling them.
> Materializing just two weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Stark Industries Solutions became a frequent source of massive DDoS attacks, Russian-language proxy and VPN services, malware tied to Russia-backed hacking groups, and fake news.
why not censor Russians? They had as of now already censored forever about a million of Ukranians and have shown all the intentions to do it more and more.
And Russia doesn't allow foreign propaganda inside Russia (it is a felony there), so it is absolutely normal to block Russian propaganda inside the foreign countries (and notice that nobody spreading Russian propaganda are put in jail for that in foreign countries though that would be only fair) .
Governments quickly realize that they cannot effectively block websites in foreign jurisdictions. The only way to achieve this is to tell local ISPs which subnets to block, and fine them if they disobey. When this automation is in place, the government can block any website in a matter of hours, no matter where it is located
yet the tools of war do exist. Even though the government can kill anybody in a matter of minutes.
And we do already have tools to block spam, and there is no difference between spam and Russian propaganda.
And murder is transparent, you cannot murder many people without a public reaction. With the internet though... They can block thousands of IPS and no one will know. And you cannot access the database of the blocked resources because, who are you, a pedophile?
I have a feeling I cannot explain how painful it is to live in a country destroying the internet. I wanted to leave the Russia even before the war because of that. Now I am extremely allergic to any government's censorship attempts