I used to do this, but then why revealing even my domain. I have bitwarden integrated with simplelogin, and I get service_garbage@aliasdomain.tld

This way I can easily filter with prefix matching (if I want to), but don’t reveal anything at all about me. Also much easier to be consistent, block senders etc. Plus, I can send emails from all those addresses if I ever need (e.g., support).

By user abc@example.com

Looking at how this started, it’s even more depressing.

Already debunked

https://bsky.app/profile/tannerofthenorth.bsky.social/post/3lp572utm5c2c

Objdct storage is anyway something I prefer over their app. Restic(/rustic) does the backup client side. B2 or any other storage to just save the data. This way you also have no vendor lock.

Wow, those are big networks. Obviously I suppose in case of AWS it doesn’t matter as no human visitor (except maybe some VPN connection?) will visit from there.

As someone who bans /32 IPs only, is the main advantage resource consumption?

I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don’t do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.

Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don’t).

Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don’t use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.

(which doesn’t harden security as much as you think)

Would be nice to elaborate this. I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can’t be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that’s a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost “run shodab to check exposed Plex instances” attack.

No that’s the thing. Plex can also use their infra as a tunneling system. You can have remote streaming without exposing Plex publicly and without VPN. It is slow though.

Well, as an application it has a huge attack surface, it’s also able to download stuff from internet (e.g., subs) and many people run it on NAS. I run jellyfin in docker, I didn’t do a security assessment yet, but for sure it needs volume mounts, not sure about what capabilities it runs with (surely NET_BIND, and I think DAC_READ_SEARCH to avoid file ownership issues with downloaders?). Either way, I would never expose a service like that on the internet.

Not to be “achtuallying” bit VPN is not a way to remote stream, it’s a way to bring remote clients in the local network.

Likewise exposing services on the internet…not really going to happen esepcially for people - like me - that run plex/jellyfin on their NAS.

I don’t have a horse in this race, i don’t use remote streaming, I only ever streamed from my nas to my 2 TVs, and I am experimenting with jellyfin. But for those who do need remote streaming, jellyfin is going to be problematic.

Not to talk about annotations. Take screenshot, click preview, click edit, click rectangle tool, make rectangle (repeat), click done. Instead with flameshot it’s literally 2 clicks. Thanks for writing documentation BTW, on behalf of whomever you work with.

I have opposite experiences! Multiple Linux laptop, with multiple docking stations: a bit of xrandr magic and everything works, forever. (BTW, try setting manually the refresh rate at different values for the two monitors via xrandr, I have solves a similar problem to yours in the past by creating a dedicated display class.)

On a Mac, it’s impossible, I have to plug one cable directly in the computer to make it work, and the quality of the output on 2k monitor is way worse since they disabled sub-pixel rendering or some stuff.

Windows also works decently on this regard, until it doesn’t (my partner’s PC stopped recognizing HDMI monitor at some point, and the debugging was frustrating as hell).

I agree so much for flameshot. For work I moved to a Mac and we are not allowed to install flameshot (signing issue), and the workflow for taking screenshots (e.g., when writing documentation) is so much worse and slow with the default macOS tooling.

Ahaha somehow I was thinking about the face and didn’t think about Fantozzi because of the pants.

Now I am curious, what are you referring to?

Run it with sudo in case you don’t see the process name with the above command.

sudo ss -patln | grep 443

You are missing the core argument of your interlocutor. From a purely utilitaristic standpoint, educating and correcting someone who seems to be in good faith but repeating propaganda or lacking knowledge is more effective that being an asshole (which BTW completely avoids the possibility of that person considering seriously what you are saying). So if you want to “shut it down”, your actions are ineffective or counterproductive.

You do you, of course, but nobody is asking to tolerate Nazis.

Right, then let me elaborate.

Take furries. Using a moralistic approach such as yours I could conclude that they are freaks who encourage bestiality. Instead I think that consenting adults can do what they want as long as they are not harming anybody (this part was obviously implied, but suddenly you lost the ability to use context and imply things when it was convenient to build a strawman).

Take women with control-related kinks. Using your moralistic approach I could go tell them that they are victims of bla bla bla who internalized bla bla bla, and that ultimately men who accept to please those kinks perpetrate bla bla bla. Instead, I think that consenting adults can get off the way they want.

I could go on, but the point is clear, hopefully.

On this topic you are a bigot. You are a bigot because you are essentially using a dogma that women can only act as victims of a system that oppresses them and nothing else. You are stripping away agency, and applying rigid moral rules grounded in that dogma. You are using a very similar approach that homophobes use to hate on gay people, you just think that you are doing it for good© reasons to defend oppressed minorities; or singular actually, because this only applies to women dating older men I suppose? Or you also have other definitions for wrong couples? Black woman/white man? Indigenous woman/white man? Poor woman/rich man? And what if this was a lesbian couple? 25yo woman/50+ woman?

I would like to know the mental gymnastic to bend that “moral principle” so that you don’t end up against mixed race couples or similar, because if you consider people only expression of their social group, you absolutely can conclude that some (all?) of those relationships represent and perpetrate the same power inequality that exists between their demographics.

Elsewhere you suggested to people to “check your own biases”, maybe you can take your own suggestion here and try to see if your analysis fell short.

Yes, it’s the same thing here, great parallel.

“We don’t judge other people sexual preferences, unless they are the wrong ones according to me”