Da fuck is your resolution?
Comment on Discord lowers free upload limit to 10MB: “Storage management is expensive”
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
25 MB wasn’t even enough to send a single full res screenshot of my desktop.
Its 2024 and we still lack the basic functionality of file sharing between peers without a corp dictator restricting and snooping.
Not that the functionality does not exist (p2p, literally) but if my grandma cant receive the family pictures its not basic.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
That makes no sense. The 24MP RAW files from my camera at 25MB, no way a PNG or JPEG of a 4K (8MP) monitor are anywhere close to that big.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
I did some test, i was speaking from memory so not very accurate.
it depends on whats on screen.
Just desktop is 128kb but irl that rarely what i send to people.
Just my game launcher will bump that up to 5MB
But the 100% real experience i have is that is try to show someone a screenshot and i get a message that file size is to big so i have conditioned myself to only show the relevant half of my screen.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 week ago
The issue is the absence of being able to port forward in a lot of places. UPNP exists on some networks but it’s usually disabled. But if we want actual peer to peer we’re going to need to implement some way to accept incoming connections EVERYWHERE.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
IF ONLY WE COULD USE IPV6 WE WOULDNT BE HAVING THIS PROBLEM
YES FUCK YOU TOO COMCAST.
Strykker@programming.dev 1 week ago
Gonna be real here, I’m in tech, there is no fucking way I’m gonna open my PC to the entire fucking internet. Vulnerabilities are everywhere and no code is perfect. Firewalls and nat help stop so many attacks from the start.
Even if ipv6 is common I will assume most implementations will be nat based.
FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 1 week ago
IPv6 does not require you to open your machine to the Internet, even without making use of a NAT. Sure you get an IP that’s valid on the whole internet, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can send you traffic.
maxwellfire@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You definitely use a firewall, but there’s no need for NAT in almost all cades with ipv6. But even with a firewall, p2p becomes easier even if you still have to do firewall hole punching
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
brother, use a firewall. NAT does nothing for this, a single stateful firewall will do more for device security than a NAT existing solely by itself.
A nat doesn’t even do anything other than provide some basic level of device anonymity. If you didn’t have a firewall it would still be accessible, you would just need to either be really good at guessing ports, or sniff for traffic that’s relevant lol.
Archer@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Comcast is one of the biggest IPv6 ISPs though?
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
not big enough.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 week ago
IPv6
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 week ago
What about it
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
it doesn’t need NAT topology, at all. There is literally zero reason to use it. Direct P2P networking is so much easier over ipv6
GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Once an end-to-end, encrypted, connection is established between a pair of peers then anything can be sent through it. The establishment proces is generally facilitated by a server of some description so neither peer needs to allow inbound connections. (I’m a long, long way from being an expert on this and happy to be corrected - but this seems like network fundamentals?)
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
this is true, but the problem is that it’s really complicated, and not always reliable. Mostly due to NATing within the networks. Firewalls don’t help but you can get around those easily enough.
There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a reliable P2P network connection over a NAT unless one peer isn’t NATed. Which is unlikely.
TL;DR we would probably ddos the internet very quickly if we tried at the scale of something like discord.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 week ago
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Firefox: Browser missing required feature. This application needs support for WebSockets, WebRTC, and WebAssembly.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Where do you see that? I just sent a file from Firefox on Debian to Vivaldi on Android with it to test.
There’s also just plain wormhole (github.com/magic-wormhole/magic-wormhole) as an application for Windows, Mac, and Linux if that web instance doesn’t work.
emax_gomax@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I kinda wish we could go back to the world of people hosting their own servers and having subsets of their homedirs on ftp urls. Of course none of that is really approachable to a lot of a people :-(.
NaoPb@eviltoast.org 1 week ago
I am considering this. I am just looking into what uses the least power.
randombullet@programming.dev 1 week ago
No way 3,840 × 2,160x2=16,588,800 pixels 16,588,800 x 10 bits = 165,888,000 bits
165,888,000 bits / 8 bits/byte = 20,736,000 bytes
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
See my edit.
I am probably remembering this from when the limit was 8MB
dan@upvote.au 1 week ago
Not that the functionality does not exist (p2p, literally) but if my grandma cant receive the family pictures its not basic.
What about encrypted messaging apps? Maybe your grandma can’t figure out Signal, but she could probably work out how to use WhatsApp (which uses the same encryption protocol) given how popular it is in some countries.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Whatsapp is a product of Meta and files would still pass their proprietary servers. Let alone the metadata they collect.
Singal can do actual p2p userdevice to userdevice. Only if thats not possible it will use temporary servers for storage. But i am actually against that, id prefer if the file would not send until a p2p connection is established.
On paper the encryption of whatsapp is about as secure as Signal but can we trust Facebook to not implement a backdoor?. There open source llm-ai (llama) is by far the most intelligent model for its size. I plore people to ask what data Meta used to archive that result.
dezmd@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Reimplement the old WASTE client from the Nullsoft dude, this time with proper encryption and security and let’s call it a day.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 week ago
That sounds like a you problem, because a PNG screenshot of my full 5120x1440 desktop is about 850 kB.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Interesting. Mine is 3840x1600 which should be ever so slightly less pixels.
I have noticed the content does matter, is your background native resolution or mostly one color?
barsoap@lemm.ee 1 week ago
3840 * 1600 * 4B / 1024 / 1024 = 23.4375MiB for uncompressed RGBA (four bytes per pixel).
That is, even if that thing was pure random pixels and would have to be stored uncompressed and you’d use a completely useless alpha channel you still don’t hit 25M.
ramble81@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Guys out here sending BMPs…
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
I did some test, i was speaking from memory so not very accurate.
it depends on whats on screen.
Just desktop is 128kb but irl that rarely what i send to people.
Just my game launcher will bump that up to 5MB
But the 100% real experience i have is that is try to show someone a screenshot and i get a message that file size is to big so i have conditioned myself to only show the relevant half of my screen.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I specifically opened a few apps to break up any large blocks of one color.