Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That Cloudflare had an outage. Not America. You probably mean the USA? After all, it was China and not Asia which was responsible for the incident ;)
In English, there is no continent named "America." It's unambiguously used to refer to the United States.
Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
131–140 of 195 posts
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#132Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, AWS again, I know it not only complies with Beijing but also Russia and many other dictatorships. Banned domain fronting and recently enforced S3 bucket-based subdomains for government to better inspect.
Their point is if you’re served within China (aka hosted off a chinese IP, or accessing anything from a Chinese IP) it doesn’t matter if the other company interacts or complies with China’s rules - the other half of the transaction will be blocked. So using DNS hosted outside won’t matter, because the destination Chinese IP will get blocked. Or if using outside hosting, it won’t matter, because anyone in China trying…
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep getting down-voted, but I have never been against being specific, in fact, I was advocating to be specific[1], i.e. North American, Latin American, South America, etc. [1] "If someone says "America" to refer to a place, they really ought to specify if they want you to understand them.". Additionally, natural languages are inherently ambiguous. So ugh, I do not think we disagree.
If someone can’t figure out what America I’m referring to when comparing America and China, I’m not sure how much useful conversation is left in them on the topic.
Maybe that doesn't apply to what you're replying to here. But my gut is that anything nested deeper than level 2 on HN is one or more respondents doing low-effort, pedantic heel-digging. (Single exception for any and all of Alan Kay's posts where the references cited are always worth whatever level the nesting is at.)
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you recommend a guide? I’m interested in trying it out.
Look up Meshtastic. It’s kinda fun. Can chat with random people around you. But I don’t think it’s really that useful unless you have a really good spot like an antenna on your roof with no trees or buildings in the way.
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#136Terrible, this is Internet curfew. It's not uncommon to imagine they'd shutdown Internet across border during any war (like against Taiwan).
That's what's so great about LoRA. Decentralized txt msgs, ultra cheap radios people run at home or wherever. $10-35USD ON AMAZON. Least txts get through.
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their point is if you’re served within China (aka hosted off a chinese IP, or accessing anything from a Chinese IP) it doesn’t matter if the other company interacts or complies with China’s rules - the other half of the transaction will be blocked. So using DNS hosted outside won’t matter, because the destination Chinese IP will get blocked. Or if using outside hosting, it won’t matter, because anyone in China trying…
Technology backed by force is not impressively effective as a technology.
If you allow connections to random websites outside of your jurisdiction then you're de facto allowing everything, because people can proxy arbitrary traffic that way. If you don't, you're effectively disconnecting your country from the global internet, which is not an impressive technological feat. Anybody with a backhoe can do a fiber cut.
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#138The most depressing is that what happens in China, will eventually happen in the west too. I'm sure certain US, UK, and EU bureaucrats are already crafting campaigns about how this ability will 'save the children' and that it should be implemented immediately (politicians and certain other selected people will be exempt of course).
There's nothing inevitable about this. Civil society needs to organize, coordinate, and spend money on PR about this. Right now liberal people mostly sit back and wait for things to get better, it's not enough. (Also going and walking up and down is not really effective.)
And if you talk back? Why, you must be a pedophile or a terrorist, otherwise why would you have anything to hide?
It's gotten bad enough that people here on HN - Hacker News! - non-ironically make more or less this argument.
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#139Terrible, this is Internet curfew. It's not uncommon to imagine they'd shutdown Internet across border during any war (like against Taiwan).
Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered, and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China.
> Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered Not true anymore. > and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China. This is still correct.