With this kind of providers you’re kind of expected to have your own online backups in order to avoid outages. The price point certainly allows for it.
> With Hetzner on the other hand I've had technical support issues responded to adequately within two hours, multiple times. As a small individual customer no less.
Hetzner has very good technical support, definitely no complaints about that. It’s their billing department which is downright unpleasant to work with.
Public rates offered by Hetzner are definitely slightly cheaper than OVH, but OVH offers vastly better volume discounts to even fairly small businesses (talking like 10-20k/mo spend).
IME OVH also offers much better connectivity around the world (which makes sense, given that they operate at a much larger scale than Hetzner)
Oh, and Hetzner billing support is absolutely terrible. I had to fight with them for months to stop charging for servers which had already been cancelled, after tens of emails they eventually owned up to having a bug on their end. It was like talking to a wall.
But… Hetzner offers an even lower quality service at an even lower price point. (But only to low-volume buyers, OVH offers vastly better volume discounts)
It would be strange to expect them to deal with the situation any differently if there was a catastrophic event in one of their DCs resulting in destroyed servers.
When working with dedicated servers at this price point, you’re very much expected to deal with your own backups.
> Glad to have left that company years before the fire, never doing business with them ever again.
What alternatives are there? Not many good ones at a comparable price point. (Yeah I know about online.net, Hetzner and so on. OVH offers a much more polished product and vastly better network)
At the prices OVH offers, you can have your servers replicated in multiple datacenters for less money than many DCs would charge you for a single server with the same specs.
At this price point it should be perfectly fine if a datacenter burns down occasionally. At least their network is otherwise very reliable.
It’s been mandatory since 2018. Browsers will reject certificates which have not been publicly logged.
Perhaps next you’ll wonder if it’s as simple as compromising a CA and a CT log? Nope, as browsers require cryptographic attestations from multiple CT logs. If you’re using Chrome, one of those logs has to be the one operated by Google.
By choosing to only have an EC card you’re making a deliberate choice to make your life difficult by using an incredibly obscure method of payment, no?
You can hardly expect those to work even in other EU countries, much less with an US based online business.
Almost everybody else in the world has a visa or a mastercard (or unionpay)
I don’t get it. How are my friends morally bankrupt for selling NFTs to people like Will Smith or Dubai royalty? Same people who are buying their art to hang on their walls.
It’s not like NFTs brought them a whole new audience, it’s just that their existing audience wanted NFTs.
You might think NFTs are worthless, but the exact same argument goes for easily reproduced physical works of art.
>IMO if you encounter any non-technical artist "excited" about NFTs, tell them to stay the hell away, or risk being seen a bad friend.
Fuck that, despite me being incredibly skeptical of NFTs I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge the fact that some of my non-technical artist friends have earned 6-7 figure amounts selling NFTs.
I think the “planet-killing scam” is very HN-sphere thinking. Most people have no idea. Most non-technical artists I interact with seem very excited about NFTs, often asking me to help them create their own (unfortunately I’m not interested).
And what about when ETH2 goes live in some months and the main NFT chain moves to proof-of-stake? The “planet-killing” problem is already solved, that tech is going live this year. Seems like a fairly fragile criticism.
I agree about securedrop, but the blog post seems to discuss “platforms such as Facebook, the BBC or NYT”.
Also in the case of securedrop it might make sense to have that separate from the rest of your infrastructure, so the “hidden” part of “hidden services” suddenly becomes useful.
> This is counterbalanced by higher phishing risks
I would argue that this is the much bigger footgun for users. Just look at how much money darknet users are losing to the big industry of .onion phishing pages.
> you are guaranteed to be connected to what you expect — or not at all.
Exactly the same guarantees are also achieved by putting your clearnet address on HSTS Preload lists, or by writing https:// in front of the url on the users side.