Notices by kasperd (kasperd@westergaard.social)

There are many reasons why you should use a domain name.

TLS is one problem as you already point out. Even for a static site there are reasons to use TLS.

• TLS is not only about protecting the confidentiality but also about protecting the authenticity. Examples have been reported of lack of TLS being used to inject ads. And it could potentially be used to inject malware into static sites.
• Even if the content of the site is public users might not want every network they traverse to know exactly which pages they are viewing.
• Even a static site can have areas which require a link to access. (This might not apply in your particular case.)

There are reasons besides TLS for why to use a domain name.

At some point the IP address may need to change. That will be a lot easier to manage if you are using a domain name and just need to update a DNS record. Otherwise you will have track down every link to the IP and update them. Some of those may exist in users bookmarks, which will be difficult for you to update.

Using a domain name with DNS means you can add redundancy as needed. If there multiple DNS records pointing to different IP addresses a browser will try them in turn. You can't get that kind of redundancy with a hardcoded IP address.

Even if the site has no redundancy it will not be sufficient for you to remember one IP address. You will need to remember both the IPv4 address and the IPv6 address.

Don't assume you can avoid that problem by only using IPv4. By now 45% of internet users have IPv6 and some of those don't have IPv4 anymore. There are workarounds for accessing legacy sites from an IPv6 connection, but some of those workarounds only work for sites with a domain name.

No. With Gmail there will also be mails that don't even make it to the spam folder.

But a majority of white women vote against women's rights because they get white supremacy along with it, and they think it is worth the trade

That's a scary thought. Can it really be true that there are over 30 million women who are so racist that they are willing to give away their own freedom to get white supremacy?

What I see is not somebody being right. I see somebody verbally attacking me and misrepresenting what I said.

I stand by what I said: "What I cannot comprehend is why a large number of women will vote for somebody who is obviously against women's rights."

If anyone thinks they can explain that without resorting to personal attacks I will listen. But that doesn't mean I will ever think it was sensible for those women to vote away their own rights.

It seems your take on this is that those women think that they are not giving away their own rights and it's only women of other races who will lose their rights.

That line of thought leads me to one important question: Can a white woman in Texas have an abortion?

If the answer is no, then some rights of white women have already been voted away. If the answer is yes, then the law is enforced selectively, which would be an interesting story for the media to cover.

If you think those policies are targeting race I'd like to see some documentation. All the policies I have seen reported are targeting women regardless of race.

IPv6 is simpler than IPv4. If you run everything as IPv6 it's so nice to work with.

The only hard problem you will face is people who refuse do do IPv6, and suddenly you end up with a load of crap to work around lack of IPv6 and shortcomings of IPv4.

IPv6 is not to blame for those problems as they only show up where IPv6 is missing.

I don't know your definition of "antisocial", but I get the impression that it's very different from what it means in my social circles.

Today I learned one of my high school classmate is running for the election.