A question is a question… Just answer the damn question without judging it.

Better let someone know what the thing does instead of forcing them to experiment with it and (possibly) break it.

Probably not wrong. But it’s a double edged sword, if Tachiyomi wasn’t hosted on Github it’s likely that it wouldn’t have gotten this far.

It’s harder for other devs to discover your project when you use the other Git forges (e.g. Gitlab).

Tell me you haven’t seen people adamantly defending IPv4 without telling me so…

Good luck getting a block of IP addresses from your regional internet registry for this community ISP… IP address exhaustion is just that, no more addresses. That’s why we are sharing them.

We do have a solution and it’s called IPv6, but its deployment is still not as widespread as people would like to be. If I self-host my website on IPv6, a lot of people from Europe would still be unable to access it.

That’s pretty much just pushing the centralization from Google, AWS etc to the hosting services.

It’s pretty difficult nowadays to self-host websites when everyone and their nanny shares a single public IP address (IPv4 address exhaustion is real, everyone!) unless you purchase a hosting service.

It’s the fear of centralization, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong!).

Seeing that the whole point of federation is to decentralize the web, putting everything under the Cloudflare umbrella goes against this philosophy.

I never liked those FMVs. They age so badly too, those FMVs looked like a blurry mess when I was playing PS1 games on my PC using an emulator

Awesome! I don’t have a Discord account (well, I had) so this will be very useful.

Not nearly as performant as either Java or COBOL.

Overall everyone will use less data when there’s a data cap, I found.

My ISP implemented data caps back then too (thankfully it’s all removed now, but 60GB was really bonkers!) and I just find it fascinating how much traffic I generate nowadays, when I don’t have to care how much data I have left this month.

Anyways, data caps shouldn’t be relevant anymore in 2023 when absolutely everything can handle gigabits and more. It’s interesting how American ISPs still implement them.

I sorta understand why data caps were implemented in the past. Some people hosted servers on their home connection, and their total internet traffic in a week would far exceed that of a normal user’s. Data caps were meant to force people to be conservative on their internet usage so this would not happen.

But come on now, it’s 2023. If your internet infrastructure could not handle that amount of traffic, you are a laughing stock of ISPs.

It’s just Cloudflare being sensitive lately because of the ongoing attacks. Check out status.lemmy.world.

deleted by creator

If your site was already accessible by HTTPS before you put it behind Cloudflare, try Full (Strict).

I feel like there’s already a significant downgrade in content quality since the blackout.

The subs I frequent seem… dead. Posts would regularly get 200+ karma before the blackout, but now even the top ones get only 100+, the rest hover around single digits. Mostly shallow discussions / simple topics that I simply don’t have the urge to engage in.

And those subs that don’t seem “dead”, are being filled by bots (obvious to see because they are very, very enthusiastic about everything lol)…

Ah, I misunderstood your original comment, oops! But yes, IPv6 packets are routed just like IPv4 ones, just without the NAT’ing process i.e. the packet remains untouched the entire trip.

IPv6 has both NAT66 and NPTv6. (Note that NPTv6 was once called NAT66 too, but I am referring to the “stateful, one-to-many” NAT66 here. Yeah, it’s confusing.) NAT66 is more like the traditional stateful NAT that all of us know and understand.

Right. Packets still have to go through your router, assuming that your router has firewall turned on, it goes like this:

1. Your router receives a packet.

2. It checks whether the packet is “expected” (a “related” packet) - by using connection tracking.

   For example, if ComputerA had sent something to ServerX before, and now the packet received by router says “from ServerX to ComputerA”, then the packet is let through - surely, this packet is just a reply to ComputerA’s previous requests.

3. If step 2 fails - we know this is a new incoming packet. Possibly it comes from an attacker, which we don’t want. And so the router checks whether there is a rule that allows such a packet to go through (the assumption is that since you are explicitly allowing it, you know how to secure yourself.)

   If I have setup a firewall rule that says “allow packets if their destination is ComputerB, TCP port 25565”, and the received packet matches this description, the router lets it through.

4. Finally, the packets that the router accepts from the previous steps are forwarded to the relevant LAN hosts.