It is, that’s what I had meant by token based challenge lol. You need a DNS API key for your manager to do it directly, it flags a DNS record with a token to validate ownership. I was just calling it out from memory, sorry!

Yeah, if you use something like Nginx Proxy Manager you can’t use the automatic flow, you need to use the token based challenge.

Super cool

I still do, but I don’t host anything on 80 or 443. I use a random large port number, and I’ve seen zero illegitimate requests in 20 months.

IF there’s an active exploit AND it affects a container AND you have a container escape route AND you pick my domain you’d need to statistically try thousands of times to even hit the single open NAT port.

The NAS itself probably takes most of the power, which isnt logged. My server is a Raspberry Pi 5, so used 1.86kWh in September.

A script checks container status and accessibility, and pushes a ntfy alert if it goes down. Healthchecks.io reports if the whole Pi goes down.

Also what I use on a Raspberry Pi 5.

Discord notifications also sometimes come with random delays because of Google bullshit, and ntfy supports UnifiedPush.

That looks very cool and maybe worth porting what I currently do — I just run a super simple template and each recipe is its own include file, with an auto generating index.

Even if the hosting dies the recipes are easy to read on github, and the network availability makes shopping easy if I decide I want to get ingredients for it at a store, or to share.

I’m not worried about some nebulous theft; the not sharing of a card number with a merchant is what I’m referring to.

Thanks! That’s an important consideration that I hadn’t run across.

I don’t use a phone case and it’s less secure besides.

It’s tap to pay (or use the public transit) that’s keeping me back.

Why Molly over the official client, may I ask? The official client is already OSS.

I only read about that today, so I hadn’t even considered that angle. They’re doing some cool stuff in that space. jeff is the self-hostable one that does best as far as I know.

Both are reasonable, though I understand why Google is pushing back against it.

The assistant angle simply is saying that they have to expose APIs that they are already using and that they can’t lock away those features, especially on an open-source operating system.

On the second point, it’s just mitigating the first-mover advantage — just because Google existed before something else, potentially before an inventor-of-a-competitor was even born, doesn’t mean that they should be immune to competitive pressure.