removed

[E9A7F3bD]

I must say that another huge pain for me is posting the YT video code, which I will never remember:
[Code] Why don't these work?
[Code] It is not too difficult to be compatible with all of these forms, and it only takes one effort to prevent everyone from experiencing that pain over and over again.

[mimzy]

You can never take care of all the minority and should not be the price to make things better.

Ideally the website should work well for everyone

For example, with a userscript or local javascript you can add a button that opens a slideshow of full-size images. In that case, full-size images would be only loaded if the user clicks the button.

Why not cache images? I can't see the contradiction between log in to see and not be a image host.
Even with the static images, you can still control the content returned by the page and refuse to be linked by cross-site restrictions.

I'm not sure that is possible with CF.

Processing and returning images through php is a huge waste, both in terms of calculation and bandwidth.

PHP just checks the authorization. It is not used to process image data. Anyway, the current implementation has both pros and cons.

It is not too difficult to be compatible with all of these forms, and it only takes one effort to prevent everyone from experiencing that pain over and over again.

Maybe the next task for FirstLoveHelper

[E9A7F3bD]

Ideally the website should work well for everyone

Ideally is always Ideally, and the world is just too far away from Ideally.
But yes, that won't stop us from trying to make some of it better.

a button that opens a slideshow of full-size images.

I thought there should be ready-made solutions or plugins there to do this.
But this definitely requires FLM's efforts to build it in.
It's not worth much to implement it from the outside or locally, and it cannot benefit more people.

I'm not sure that is possible with CF.

Do you really think so? Have you forgotten what CF's business is?

There is no need to authenticate the images, with random name, no one can guess unless you include it in the page.
The only thing you want to limit is not to be cited by other websites and not to make certain images so eye-catching.

PHP just checks the authorization. It is not used to process image data.

Whether it is authentication or streaming data, there is computational consumption every time the php thread is called.
Compared to returning static resources or CDN caches, it is a huge pressure for the server.

Maybe the next task for FirstLoveHelper

FirstLoveHelper reduces complex things from the outside limited, but solving many things from the inside is the best way to do.

[mimzy]

I'm not sure that is possible with CF.

Do you really think so? Have you forgotten what CF's business is?

There is no need to authenticate the images, with random name, no one can guess unless you include it in the page.
The only thing you want to limit is not to be cited by other websites and not to make certain images so eye-catching.

I'm not sure that cross-site restrictions are possible with CF, but possibly they are possible.

Anyway, there are some people who don't like CF for privacy reasons. The .com domain is not using CF currently.

PHP just checks the authorization. It is not used to process image data.

Whether it is authentication or streaming data, there is computational consumption every time the php thread is called.
Compared to returning static resources or CDN caches, it is a huge pressure for the server.

The computational overhead of FLiM is a fraction of what is needed to run the forum...

[E9A7F3bD]

Anyway, there are some people who don't like CF for privacy reasons.

What privacy reasons?

The computational overhead of FLiM is a fraction of what is needed to run the forum...

Sure, but what is the reason for you saying it, because I said "huge pressure"?
But my context was "comparison" isn't it?

[FLH]

removed

[mimzy]

Anyway, there are some people who don't like CF for privacy reasons.

What privacy reasons?

Well, you know they see everything you post or read on ANY site that uses CF...

The computational overhead of FLiM is a fraction of what is needed to run the forum...

Sure, but what is the reason for you saying it, because I said "huge pressure"?
But my context was "comparison" isn't it?

I mean by using CDN we wouldn't win much computationally. Bandwidth yes, but we still couldn't mirgate to a smaller and cheaper server or so.

[mimzy]

Addressed in FirstLoveHelper v1.2.2

Thanks!

[E9A7F3bD]

Well, you know they see everything you post or read on ANY site that uses CF...
I mean by using CDN we wouldn't win much computationally. Bandwidth yes, but we still couldn't mirgate to a smaller and cheaper server or so.

If that is the privacy model here, then maybe they should use TB at first.
I don't think there is any difference in believing in CF or FLM in this case.

When opening a page, the number of requests decreases from 50 to 10, which is quite a considerable difference.
I've never considered the possibility of lowering server configurations as a result, but it definitely helps reduce server busyness.

In addition, if you really care about bandwidth issues, it is definitely considerable to widely adopt WebP and AVIF.

[mimzy]

If that is the privacy model here, then maybe they should use TB at first.

Tor Browser? It hides your IP like VPN does, but CF still sees the data, including your username and password in plaintext. And you'd have to enable javascript in TB to resolve CF captchas.

I don't think there is any difference in believing in CF or FLM in this case.

Here at FLM we obviously see what you post, but we cannot correlate that with other sites.