Yeah I'm in the same boat. I was pretty excited to bring stuff over from Cloudflare but the missing S3 compat. and the communication around that was (and still is) a dealbreaker for me.
Asking because I was looking at both Cloudflare and Bunny literally this week...and I feel like I don't know anything about it. Googling for it, with "hackernews" as keyword to avoid all the blogspam, didn't bring up all that much.
(I ended up with Cloudflare and am sure that for my purposes it doesn't matter at all which I choose.)
- The free CDN is basically unusable with my ISP Telekom Germany due to a long-running and well documented peering dispute. This is not necessarily an issue with Cloudflare itself, but means that I have to pay for the Pro plan for every domain if I want to have a functioning site in my home country. The $25 per domain / project add up.
- Cloudflare recently had repeated, long outages that took down my projects for hours at a time.
- Their database offering (D1) had some unpredictable latency spikes that I never managed to fully track down.
- As a European, I'm trying to minimize the money I spent on US cloud services and am actively looking for European alternatives.
You don‘t have to get the Pro plan to solve the Deutsche Telekom issues. You can also use their Argo product for $5/month - but only makes sense if your egress costs wouldn‘t exceed the pro plans pricing.
The reverse. Argo gives better peering than any paid plan. Its the reason for the product‘s existence. They can use more costly peering that they couldn‘t use with their free egress model.
Thanks for the pointer, not doubting that is true. My egress is unfortunately too large for it to make financial sense.
However, at the time I did plenty of trace routes to confirm that the Pro plans peering is at least better than the Free plan for the Telekom problem. Free plan would route traffic to NYC and back, while Pro plan traffic terminates in Frankfurt.
> This feature is currently in the closed beta stage. It is not available for use currently, but it's expected to be in the near future. We appreciate your interest in it and will mark your ticket so we can notify you when it's available.
I fail to see what is damning here. What would you even hold a referendum on? Independence? Replacing the arrangement with Denmark with whatever unclear arrangement the US is proposing?
If you trust independent polls, you can get a pretty clear picture of where Greenlanders stood as of Feb. 2025:
Danish citizenship or independence are overwhelmingly favored over US citizenship in these polls. And for independence, only really if it does not affect living standard too bad. And there, it's hard to imagine the US being able to match Denmark's social security system...
I believe you write in good faith, and that you sincerely and non-agressively hold your opinion, and that you believe you don't lack a well known piece of information.
But first let me quote a short piece of text, and later in the comment I will reveal where it comes from.
"After World War II, colonial power was increasingly frowned upon on the international stage. To ease pressure from the United Nations, Denmark decided to reclassify Greenland, not as a colony, but as a region. A new Status that required Denmark to guarantee EQUAL LIVING STANDARDS for both Greenlanders and Danes."
Hold on to this "EQUAL LIVING STANDARDS".
So now on towards the poll.
Back when I was studying physics, one of the courses was statistics. Now statistics in physics or mathematical courses is very different from "statistics" in applied / social / political sciences where students are merely required to execute a procedure, like linear regression to fit a line, or the steps to calculate average and variance, ... Those are fixed formulas without rearranging terms and applying mathematical deduction to statistical statements. One can't fully grok statistics in this light form, it needs more rigorous foundations, only then can students learn to derive their own original conclusions in a correct manner and be able to see through the honest mistakes or manipulations of statistical results by others. The professor recommended a booklet called "How to Lie with Statistics". Of course the goal of the book is NOT to breed dishonest statisticians, but to show the myriad of ways statistical results are depicted and phrased to convey intentionally convey an incorrect impression or conclusion, so that we can detect and see through it.
One of the classic things is for example the distribution of top classes: consider mortality rates for different afflictions, lets pretend we buy into the mono-causal paradigm, so tree like, not DAG like. Then if some entity is embarrassed about the top entry, you can just split it up in similarily balanced subcases (instead of a category cancer, splitting it up into all the different kinds of cancer might result in say cardiovascular diseases becoming the top category, simply by splitting up the top class. (My example is arbitrary, I care naught about top mortality, personally).
A false dilemma (false trilemma etc.) is when all the options combined don't form the universe of possibilities, like "would you prefer pestilence or cholera"?
Please take a careful look at the actual poll options [0]:
1. I want independence unconditionally, regardless of the impact on the standard of living
2. I want independence, even if it would have a major negative impact on the standard of living
3. I want independence, even if it would have a small negative impact on my standard of living
4. I only want independence if it doesn't have a negative impact on my standard of living
5. I don't want independence
6. Don't know
It's almost like some Dane made up the vote-able categories and decided to troll the Greenlanders with a reference to the broken promise: LIVING STANDARDS ?!? Some Good Old forced contraception foisted of as the required EQUAL LIVING STANDARDS between Danes and Greenlanders ?!!
So we can classify already: Don't Know (option 6: 9%) vs Know (presumably options 1 through 5: 91% claim to know what they want), so far so good since we have mutually exclusive but exhaustive split.
Now consider the universe of possibilities for those who Know:
Those who know they want independence (from Denmark; options 1 through 4: 84% of all respondents) and those who know they don't want independence (from Denmark; option 5: 9% of all respondents)
So far so good.
Those who want independence (from Denmark) unconditionally (option 1: 18% of all respondents) and those who want independence (from Denmark) conditionally (option 2 through 4: 66%)
Here it gets vague because the boundaries one is asked to get classified in (divide and conquer style) are subjective: on condition there is no "major", "small" or "negative" impact on standard of living.
Is "negative impact" more or less negative than "small negative impact"? I want to see HN commenters discuss if "negative impact" is better or worse than "small negative impact".
This is just non-quantitative gerrymandering.
But let's ignore the gerrymandering: the phrasing is not neutral, as if it is a given there will be negative impact on standards of living!
Imagine the poll stated not the above but:
1. "I want independence unconditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
2. "I want independence conditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new major round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
3. "I want independence unconditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new small round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
4. "I want independence unconditionally, regardless if the Danes perform a new round of population control as a goodbye present for old times sake"
It would be the exact same logical fallacy, but probably with different results, thousands of women (and men) would keelhaul their nearest Danish officials under the nearest ice shelf.
It's just insulting for an (unverifiable) poll to pull these tricks, especially if the poll was co-organized by a Danish newspaper.
> The poll, which was carried out by Verian on behalf of Danish newspaper Berlingske ...
Something else that is insulting: I saw pictures of immense crowds protesting Trump's comments, and read the number of protesters involved: practically the population count of whole Greenland... until I saw the fine print: the numbers were for a protest in Denmark, not Greenland!
Let people speak for themselves, and don't gerrymander polls, its just doubly insulting, and shows that the colonial mentality is still present, sigh!
that power goes both ways, what happens if the Greenland population demands the full list of doctors involved, what type of doctors: military or civilian?, their extradition for legal proceedings on Greenland soil, the confiscation of their pension funds, ... the whole shebang, or else --- who knows they might become a state joining a Union of States, perhaps EU perhaps US. The US has a similar history, from a similar time frame, but the Danish government took a remarkably longer time to even acknowledge what happened.
Check this documentary (about 30 minutes), horrendous crimes. And then "apologizing", apologizing is when all forms of help have been exhausted, instead of apologizing reveal the lists of doctors, so the Greenlanders can question them, who they got commands from, and were those people got their instructions from, extraditions, confiscation of their pension funds (think about it: having been raped by the doctor, or sedated (another crime if for non medical reasons). The normal order is acknowledge, then help, help, help, and only when all forms of help have been exhausted, apologize.
And Europe is angry how Trump plays the realpolitik game, but by not insisting a Greenland run referendum, but instead backing Denmark, they are playing the realpolitik game just as well, you know "maintaining good relations"
Recommended viewing (30 minutes), its where the quote comes from:
> If this was the case, why have a public telegram group then?
I recently set up my first Valetudo robot, and therefore thoroughly read the documentation multiple times. In it, he comes across as genuinely wanting to help people succeed running Valetudo. I assume that's the reason for the group chat. At the same time, he also very very much does not want to give people the illusion that they can demand anything from him. The fear that people will is not unfounded. Think of what happens in any moderately popular FOSS project. He's just opting out of all that, in no uncertain terms.
> Sounds more like a fetish basement than a garden to me.
Fine. So he's made a fetish basement, and he's letting others use it for free. He wants to make sure that nobody demands, or even suggests, he change his basement to accommodate their fetishes.
There's a way to do all that without being an arsehole.
Also putting an open source project out there doesn't absolve you of all social obligations simply because it's free. You can't say "well you are free to not use it, then it doesn't affect you at all" because that isn't true. By making and publicising this project he is actively discouraging other similar projects from happening - ones that might have less toxic leaders.
I should write a blog post about that because it seems to be an extremely common misconception.
> Also putting an open source project out there doesn't absolve you of all social obligations simply because it's free.
If I understand the guy correctly, he doesn't think that sharing software that he wrote comes with any obligations once he's sufficiently informed the recipients about damage it may cause. I agree with him.
I don't. Not morally anyway. By sharing it he's ensuring that no other less toxic projects can flourish (at least not as easily). That comes with some moral obligation not to be a complete dick.
putting an open source project out there doesn’t entail _any_ social obligations actually.
I can imagine the author took abuse from some extremely entitled people for some time and then just snapped.
If you ever ran any moderately successful oss project you get dozens of these people all the time; they demand your time, work, and attention and screech, complain, and blackmail you if you don’t instantly succumb to their demands.
It’s the one thing that always turned me off from doing oss more seriously;
users are just the worst.
Of course only a small fraction of users but if you have many users it’s a never ending flood
> putting an open source project out there doesn’t entail _any_ social obligations actually.
I disagree with that though. See my other comments.
> If you ever ran any moderately successful oss project
I do (if 600 stars counts, which I'm sure you'll tell me it doesn't). We don't get people like that, and from the sounds of it none of the people who have been instantly banned have been like that either.
Although if the project is so toxic and horrible to interact with - wouldn’t people look for a more wholesome project?
I don’t agree that the toxic project would stifle growth for other less toxic projects solely by existing.
If it’s that bad then it shouldn’t be that much more popular?
Besides what is stopping people from forking and building a less toxic community?
What irks me mostly about these complaints is exactly that: a whole lot of complaining and handwringing going on and very little action to improve the situation or even trying to understand how it came to be.
Actually there is a big understanding of how this all came to be. You are all just too new to currently grasp it.
Also most of the people with big interest to fork are banned from the GitHub, which blocks direct forks, and this makes it much more difficult to rebase the source after change to the main
I would normally second this, but the Trump admin did order a suspension of offensive cyber operations against Russia in March. So not sure you can truly rule out malice in this case.
>a suspension of offensive cyber operations against Russia in March.
uhhh... why are we commiting offensive cyber operations against a nuclear power? Somewhere in your line you seems to think that it's justified? And that biden was doing the right thing by provoking a major power?
Some people just want the world to burn, and when someone puts out the fire, they think that's unamerican?
Such Biden logic that ended with us launching missiles into russia. A constant escalation with no real end in sight and always matching "tit-for-tat- instead of trying to solve the root issue.
You don't think trump is actively involved in negotations with russia to stop all this madness?
Don't you think that one of the first signs of good faith in negotations would be to stop attacking eachother?
No other president has given explicit permission to launch american missles and use american guidance systems to launch missles into russian territory... Besides biden. What are you talking about?
And you forgot... besides Trump. because trumps not a warmonger, people like to act like he's on the side of the russians. People have lost their minds.
In the last 3 months, Trump has threatened to invade:
- Greenland
- Canada
- Mexico
- Panama
- Cuba
> people like to act like he's on the side of the russians
Trump has said that Ukraine is the one that started the war, and the "deal" he negotiated to end the war excluded Ukraine from the discussion and would give Russia everything it asked for.
> People have lost their minds.
You're right on that point, but its probably not the people you're thinking of.
Because when someone punches you in the face, you punch back?
Also I don't know why we keep referring to Russia as a major power, their GDP is about the size of Italy's, their economy is on the rocks, their military stockpile is depleted from a failed invasion of their much, much smaller neighbor.
failed operation? Have you seen the war map? After the whole world dumped all their stockpiles to ukraine for over $500B, the russians have still taken over a 3rd of the country. Biden logic was going to lead to a american troops on the ground, and a vietnam all over again.
Russia didn't punch us in the face, they punched some dude that we barley knew in highschool half way across the world.
Your numbers are way off. Ukraine has not received "over $500B". According to the Kiel institute tracker, as of February, the total military support for Ukraine from all all over the world combined stands at 132 billion EUR (~148bn USD). Nor does Russia control a third of the country. Russia controls 18.3%, of which 7.05% was occupied before 2022 and 11.25% since then. The total area held by Russia peaked in the first month of the war at 25.86%, was reduced to 18% with Ukrainian counteroffensives, and has stood there since the late 2022.
While looking at the chart, keep in mind that Russia currently loses around 30-45k people a month as dead and wounded and they have nothing to show for it. The last major territorial gains were during the first month of the war in March 2022. It's a total military disaster with no end in sight.
And the person you replied to is absolutely right: Russia is not fighting for the potato fields of Ukraine, but to dismantle the entire international security system that the US built after the WWII to secure commerce and influence on the world. Ukraine is one of the stepping stones. Here's the full blueprint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con...
There is a long-standing dispute between Cloudflare and Germany's biggest ISP, Telekom, which results in terrible peering for Cloudflare free traffic for Telekom customers here. Sites on the Cloudflare Pro plan are not affected by this somehow.
If the author is a Telekom customer, then they would absolutely see 100ms+ improvements.
DTAG is just terrible. Having a whitelist of allowed mail providers they deal with? Check. Abusing peering to squeeze more cash? Check. Advocating for censorship on the Internet? Check.
>Sites on the Cloudflare Pro plan are not affected by this somehow.
This has been my general experience with cloudflare. Their free plan is abysmally slow. And even their Pro plans add significant (30ms+) overhead to requests.
rateyourmusic.com has great yearly charts and genre charts and the best granular genre tags on the internet. If you like an album or artist, going through the charts related to their genre tags very often finds me a lot of great music.
The second thing that has proven indispensable for me are recommendations from "peers" on private music torrent trackers. I found a few people where I know that if they recommend something, even if it's a genre I don't listen to frequently, chances are I will like this as well. This spawned a lot of fun music adventures.
This seems to have been edited already, it's missing some ad hominem attacks and the recommendation to see a therapist which were definitely present when this article was linked.
I guess we are two then, I feel the pretty much the same way as you. I might be completely wrong about all this, but it is getting to a point where it feels like I'm getting gaslit when I compare it with my own experience with these tools so far.
Crafting good prompts makes a big difference. Also, after it gives you an answer, say you think there's an error and ask it to check its own result. It will often correct itself. This self-reflection ability leading to more accurate outputs was pointed out in the new Reflexion paper:
Genuine question as I definitely need more to balance my own thinking —
What has your experience with GPT been? For me, GPT-3 was not really useful as a software dev.
But GPT-4 is miles ahead of that. It’s helped me write code maybe 4-8x faster than usual, and has even allowed me to debug existing issues far, far quicker and more accurately than I’d ever be able to on my own.
Part of the gap very well might be my own mediocrity with development . I wouldn’t argue that folks with far superior skills and novel challenges day-to-day might be unimpressed.
But as an average dev writing pretty boring code (REST APIs and system integration mostly), I’ve been blown away by GPT-4. I am pretty well compensated and have been in the field for 10 years, too; but I am aware of my own shortcomings.
