There is currently no alternative to geo-blocking the UK if you don't want to get threatening legal letters from Ofcom that order you to break the laws of your country.
Spam can be filtered effectively client-side with a good spam filter. This has worked well for me for decades without the need for any server-side spam filtering.
You mean like LLM filters? Right now it's all reputation based on IP and domain with a whole ecosystem of anti-spam companies like Spamhaus, SenderScore, ProofPoint, etc.
Using NLP / LLM spam filtering would presumably be either inaccurate or expensive or both. Someone would have to pay for it.
Bayesian filters are basically just a cheaper / worse version of what an LLM filter would do. Very easy to beat. Especially if the spammer is using an LLM to write a semi-unique email for each recipient.
What I'm trying to tell you is hat this has de facto worked for me during the past 20+ years. I get ca. 100 spam mails a day and they all get neatly sorted in the spam folder. There is no server-side filtering at all, my email provider allows users to switch that off entirely (and better should because it's very faulty).
As I've said, I'm not interested in theoretical arguments. All of my domains wildcard forward to the same email address, too. Filtering client-side has never been a problem.
That's pretty interesting if true. It must be because you're the only one still doing it. Using techniques just for your idiosyncratic inbox doesn't make sense to a spammer. But if every inbox was only doing this, then your experience would be much different. Nothing but unstoppable spam. Exposure = money. Why would they not spam you? They don't like money?
This is always an unfair comparison because for any realistic comparison you need to have two servers on two locations for georedundancy and need to pay for the premises and their physical security, too. For example, you need to pay for security locks with access log and a commercial security company, or you have to pay for co-location in a datacenter.
When you add up all these costs plus the electricity bill, I wager that many cloud providers are on the cheaper side due to the economy of scale. I'd be interested in such a more detailed comparison for various locations / setups vs cloud providers.
What almost never goes into this discussion, however, is the expertise and infrastructure you lose when you put your servers into the cloud. Your own servers and their infrastructure are MOAT that can be sold as various products if needed. In contrast, relying on a cloud provider is mostly an additional dependency.
> you need to have two servers on two locations for georedundancy
You also absolutely need this with EC2 instances, which is what the comparison was about. So no, it's not unfair.
If you're using an AWS service built on top of EC2, Fargate, or anything else, you WILL see the same costs (on top of the extremely expensive Ops engineer you hire to do it, of course).
> need to pay for the premises and their physical security, too [...] plus the electricity bill
...and all of this is included in the Hetzner service.
Once again comments conflating "dedicated server" with "co-location".
AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring.
I am a Hetzner customer for my forthcoming small company in order to keep running costs low, but it's not as if companies using AWS were irrational. You get what you pay for.
> AWS counts as managed servers with constant security monitoring. That's a huge difference to paying for a dedicated server where you're responsible for the installation and maintenance of the operating system and all software, intrusion detection and thread responses, and server monitoring.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "georedundancy" or "physical security" or "electricity".
The point is that the comparison is rubbish because Amazon offers way more than Hetzner. If you compare apples with oranges, you get the result that they're different, and that's the gist of the video we're talking about. I'll spare you a car analogy since I'm sure you understand what I'm saying without one. Companies choose Amazon AWS because having peace of mind and contracting out liability is worth the price. It's not complicated and honestly not worth making a video about. That's all I have to say. Have a good day!
Offering way more doesn't mean it's necessarily worth it. If that 'way more' is not so valuable, then it doesn't matter.
It's a lot like the old Mac comparisons of days old. Well you see, the 5K iMac is actually a good value, because a 5K monitor costs 1500 dollars! Okay... but a 4k monitor doesn't, and it's almost the same thing.
Amazon markets itself as competitive by doing the whole 'you have to compare apples to apples' thing. But do you want the apples? Will you eat them? Any product can make itself seem like a good value when it throws in a bunch of stuff you'll never use.
This is one of the most common sales tactics out there. Go to a car dealership, and they'll talk your ear off about the amazing!!1 dealership addons. Whooaaa dude it's such a good value, look you get an oil change coupon and this stripe painted on your door!! Those other dealerships don't give you that, you gotta factor that in man!
Don't double down and change the tune when you say rubbish.
Don't go around saying that you have to worry about "physical security" or "electricity" just because you didn't buy AWS. You definitely don't have to worry when you use Hetzner.
I use only borosilicate glass vessels for cooking, for storing food, for eating and for drinking (some from France, some from Czechia).
I have replaced some of them in order to have more optimized sizes and shapes for the ways I use them (even if the replaced vessels were still perfectly good), and I have some extra vessels kept in reserve for the very unlikely case when I will break a vessel (which has not happened yet).
I do not expect that I would need to buy any more such vessels during my lifetime, unless I will become bored of those that I have and I would want a change.
So making money from selling high-quality glassware that can last forever is much more difficult than getting free money from a software subscription.
Exactly. All my glassware are Duralex including coffe cups, and I haven't broken a single glass in 25+ years. Yet, they regularly fall on the ceramic kitchen floor from a hip level.
I wrote a longer post about that elsewhere but there is morally no good justification to restrict everyone else's devices just because a small minority falls for scams. This is a very principal issue in a free society and in most societies we allow all kinds of individual risk taking because we believe that adults should make their own choices even if that means that some people sometimes make mistakes.
On a side note, it is technically very feasible to help antivirus and security software makers to lock down phones for people who would benefit from it. For example, you could have a strict whitelisting approach for vulnerable users (e.g. elderly, bitcoin entrepreneurs, annoying kids, Google engineers) who prefer it that way, making installation of arbitrary software impossible. Giving up choices voluntarily is fine, taking away choices by force is not fine.
That's by far not good enough. Google's reasoning is principally flawed.
First of all, there is principally no good reason why adult people should be patronized by Google or other companies and kept from installing the software they want to install. Limitation of numbers just means that I cannot publish my .apk and let users install it freely. However, anyone who is allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or get a motorcycle, should also be allowed to install whatever application they want. It's a matter of basic individual freedom.
Second, the majority of reasonable users cannot be restricted from using their device as they wish just because a small minority falls for scams. A minority of people also drink themselves to death, die in motorcycle accidents, or smoke. There is nothing wrong with taking risks and taking responsibility for one's own life. We don't need for-profit corporations to hold our hands.
Third, if they believed their own arguments, then they'd make certain functions such as intercepting SMS messages and installing a custom keyboard subject to stricter requirements with potential developer verification and keep the OS open and free otherwise. This would be a piece of cake since the technical infrastructure is already there on Android. The fact that they don't clearly indicates they're hypocrites and want to control users and developers, make 3rd party app stores harder or impossible, control which apps they "allow" as part of anti-competitive behavior, and possibly extract some extra cash from developers in the future.
It's a pity how private computing is destroyed and that's the reason we all have to use inferior web apps until browsers are closed down in the same way in the name of security theater.
I'm using claws-mail and currently have 53,399 mails in my INBOX and 62,138 mails in my spam folder. I've got a few other mailboxes for mailing lists, some of them 100k entries but I barely read them. I guess I could delete these but my mail folder is only 19.2 GB in size. The storage medium sizes increase so fast that I've never had to delete anything.
Artists no, illustrators and graphic designers yes. They'll mostly become redundant within the next 50 years. With these kind of technologies, people tend to overestimate the short-term effects and severely underestimate the long-term effects.
I don't understand "email leaks." My email has and always will be public, that's the whole point of having an email address. It's on my website so people can contact me.
reply