grandkaiser

Warning, the below is not uplifting @ all. Avoid if you don't wanna see it.

There are many many reasons you don't want to (or can't) have the apex of your domain (what you're calling the "default domain") the primary domain name of your site. I thought you were going to argue in favor of like "home.[domain].com" or something.

The first and foremost issue is that if you wish to use a CDN, many CDN's require a CNAME to function properly. You can't have a CNAME share space with any other record (RFC 1912) which completely precludes using an MX record (for email) or TXT records for DKIM, SPF, and DMARC. (You need those for a secure email service). Having the CNAME sit as a subdomain of the apex (such as www) allows you to maintain those records in your domain while also serving people using that CNAME. (Some CDN's such as Akamai even have special proprietary records that function like a CNAME while returning A records just to make this work)

Why not? (Serious question, I'm a DNS engineer so this is super relevant to me)

Precisely. When warmongering dictators with imperialistic ambitions invade your nation, just throw their magical ring into a hot mountain.

The community name isn't a license to say dumb things and not be called out for it

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

"Entering the US at any place other than as designated by immigration officers." is not fleeing or lies. I genuinely don't understand why you keep misrepresenting stuff that's a click away.

Also, why did you reply twice? Forget to change your socks?

Nah, coal is plant matter too.

That's not from the supreme court ruling. That's an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

"Many experts" isn't someone I can talk with or argue against. They're just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of "life, liberty, or property" without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It's not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

This is exactly why i'm asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn't even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they're talking about.