rmdoss

Hope Splunk loses. Trying to kill a good player that makes Splunk less expensive.

The border is often a lawless section of most countries - specially the US.

People can get detained, deported and humiliated for no reason and with no resource. Specially foreigners trying to go through.

A couple that I know:

Sucuri: DNS, WAF and CDN

NOC.org: DNS, WAF and CDN

Duolingo is doing it amazingly to learn a new language.

Mailgun here. Just works, pretty cheap.

Isn't it the second or third round if layoffs? Great concept and loved my peloton during the worst of covid, sad to see what is happening.

So hard to balance both.

For my young kids ( under 10 ), I am very strict on what they can see and do online. Screen time, CleanBrowsing, and app restrictions enabled.

For my teenager, it is a bit different. More conversation, more privacy and more spending time teaching her about computers, security, privacy, etc. She chose to install CleanBrowsing, an ad blocker, all on her own to protect herself.

Good luck!

As a long time Firefox user, my main issue with Firefox is Mozilla itself and their focus shifting to VPNs, pocket and things non browser related.

But still love Firefox.

It depends on the reason to learn a new language. Once you know a few languages, you generally only learn a new one if you are trying to solve a specific problem that it can do better.

What I try is to solve a small piece of the problem I am trying to solve to get more familiar with it before committing.

Everything needs to be gamified now.

Makes sense for the US market, where every device already comes with SSDs. But that's not as common in other countries.

Most new companies now are on generic TLDs ( or .nets, .orgs, etc). Don't think .com matters as much anymore

What's wrong with ahrefs? Besides having a pretty annoying crawler?

Not from my experience. That's why I had to disable DoH locally.

Archive.is is very interesting. I was checking and they block (by responding back with 127.0.0.3):

- 1.1.1.1

- Neustar DNS

- AdGuard DNS

But they don't block Quad9 or CleanBrowsing that also do not send the EDNS subnet. Very curious way of blocking itself out of the Internet. OpenDNS blocks it (sends to their block page):

https://dnsblacklist.org/?domain=archive.is

Would love to hear from someone from archive.is what is going on.

Firefox is likely falling back to your local resolver (the default) when it can't find a domain.

Note that with DoH on Firefox, your intranet domains do not work. Had issues with it before and had to disable DoH just to access our company printer. Also causes issues with DC.

That goes into the argument that DNS (domain name lookup) should be a system and network-level setting, not an App-based setting.

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc.

But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well.

Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns requests are a MISS).

Privacy? With DNS over TLS/DNS over HTTPS, your ISPs can't see what you are doing. If you run DNS locally, they can. Yes, they will see all the requests your resolvers are doing to the auth DNS servers.

Security? Some good resolvers, like Quad9 or CleanBrowsing will block malicious domains. CleanBrowsing will also help blocking adult content if you have kids. I don't think maintaining such control is practical for most people (pi-hole helps, but still hard to keep it updated and find good enough databases to use).

I would love a de-centralized web, but it is pretty hard to go back.

He might be defending the value of immigration (and immigrants), not much the h1b. So I wouldn't accuse him or pushing an agenda because of that comment.

I dont think most people choose that (or even have a choice).

Whatever luck you get on your first job or whatever your pays more, becomes the problems you are solving.

Thanks. I remember seeing that, but thought was a joke.

Oh, I thought that was added a joke.

Have any info on that?

Yep, both DO and Linode do the same thing. Just null route your IP and take forever to remove it once you fixed whatever problem it was (even if it was a false alarm).

Does anyone know if nginx will support TLSv1.3 automatically if you recompile it with 1.1.1?

Yes, that's the big issue. Plus, changing to a different resolver is not very simple and most users won't even know.

Don't think the MD5 is there for security reasons, just to detect broken downloads.

It is not much about privacy, but about the integrity of your data.

Your ISP can see the IP addresses and all the meta data for your traffic. With the current way DNS is setup, they can modify the responses and re-route you any where they want.

With HTTPS and encrypted DNS, it makes a lot harder for them to inject content or redirect you without browsers warnings.

Quick performance test comparing these 4 players:

* Google: 8.8.8.8 * Quad9.com: 9.9.9.9 * http://OpenDNS.com: 208.67.222.222 * https://CleanBrowsing.org: 185.228.168.168

Results:

  New York:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.62 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=0.924 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.18 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=1.93 ms

  Montreal:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=13.0 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=16.7 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=16.5 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=9.18 ms

  Dallas:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=1.09 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=29.8 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.03 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.29 ms

  Paris:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=4.61 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.71 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=4.60 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=3.85 ms

  Tokyo:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=1.10 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=65.7 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.57 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=0.551 ms

But I will still try it out and hope they keep supporting it.

QubesOS -> Secure Desktop

OpenBSD -> Secure & minimal Server

OpenBSD doesn't have the isolation and hardening on the desktop apps, as Qubes has.