fusl

It's in fact two ®'s too many: even the "they don't like it" link to the GitHub issue has them.

I don't use OptiFine but care to explain to someone not in the loop why they should avoid OptiFine?

There are probably a couple more typos in this ("momenet" being another one). It's very refreshing to see blog posts not being written by LLMs for once.

Sounds like you're using Bluetooth headphones and the game is attaching to the microphone which will automatically switch the audio codec from audio mode into headset mode. I'd suggest trying to completely disable the microphone of the headset so the game won't even try to attach to it.

Unfortunately Anubis doesn't help where my pipe to the internet isn't fat enough to just eat up all the bandwidth that the attacker has available. Renting tens of terabits of capacity isn't cheap and DDoS attacks nowadays are in the scale of that. BunnyCDN's DDoS protection is unfortunately too basic to filter out anything that's ever so slightly more sophisticated. Cloudflare's flexibility in terms of custom rulesets and their global pre-trained rulesets (based on attacks they've seen in the past) is imo just unbeatable at this time.

Been using Cachet for quite a while before inevitably migrating to Atlassian's Statuspage.io. I'm a huge fan of self-hosting and self-managing every single thing in existence but Cachet was just such a PITA to maintain and there was just no other good alternative to Cachet that was also open source.

Happy to hear anyone's suggestions about where else to go or what else to do in regards to protecting from large-scale volumetric DDoS attacks. Pretty much every CDN provider nowadays has stacked up enough capacity to tank these kind of attacks, good luck trying to combat these yourself these days?

I think you misunderstand the flow of traffic here. The data flow, initiated by requests coming from AWS us-east-1, was Cloudflare towards AWS, not the other way around. Cloudflare can easily control where and how their egress traffic gets to the destination (as long as there are multiple paths towards the target) as well as rate limit that traffic to sane levels.

Looks like it was returning some SERVFAILs on 8.8.8.8 and .4.4

Their email makes sense, except it doesn't. As someone who considers themselves a low traffic usage customer, running hundreds of Hetzner Cloud servers - each averaging less than 10GB of data transfer, with only a few servers reaching the previously included 50-60TB/month - I’m now facing an overall increase in costs.

Not only are the per-server prices higher, but the drastic cut in included bandwidth (without a corresponding option for bandwidth pooling) means I'll be paying significantly more despite my usage being well within "low traffic" by their standards. It’s frustrating that Hetzner never introduced a bandwidth pooling option for customers where it would make sense, especially in scenarios like mine where usage is highly imbalanced across servers.

At this point, Vultr and Linode are starting to make a lot more sense, even with their more expensive traffic pricing, since both providers offer traffic pooling. This feature would have significantly softened the blow of Hetzner's pricing changes, but instead, they’re pushing costs onto loyal customers who don’t fit neatly into their new model.

In the EU under GDPR, users must be given a genuine choice, meaning they should be able to refuse consent without facing negative consequences such as being redirected or denied access to the service. Creating the illusion of choice by asking for consent and then redirecting users to another site if they decline is a violation of the principles of transparency, fairness, and freely given consent outlined in the GDPR.