Melmi

deleted by creator

When done correctly, the banner is actually a consent banner. It’s a legal thing, not necessarily trying to discourage criminals. It’s informing users that all use will be monitored and it implies their consent to the technology policies of the organization. It’s more for regular users than criminals.

When it’s just “unauthorized access is prohibited”, though, especially on a single-user server? Not really any point. But since this article was based on compliance guidelines that aren’t all relevant to the homelab, I can see how it got warped into the empty “you no hack” banner.

That 10Gb link is almost certainly oversubscribed, though. You don’t actually have 10 Gb of dedicated constant bandwidth, you just have access to 10Gb of potential bandwidth. You’re unlikely to saturate that link very often, so you won’t notice, but it’s shared with other people.

It’s different from Google or any other company paying for bandwidth that’s being actually used, not just a pre-allocated link like your home internet.

But how will you get a “universal” view of the fediverse? No single authoritative view exists.

You yourself acknowledge that this is complicated, but I honestly don’t understand what appeal a hacked together fake centralized system would have for people if they don’t care about decentralization in the first place. Any such solution is almost inevitably gonna end up being janky and hacked together just to present a façade of worse Reddit.

Lemmy’s strength is its decentralization and federation. It’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a feature that’s attractive in its own right. It doesn’t need mass appeal, it’s a niche project and probably always will be. I don’t think papering over the fundamental design of the software will make it meaningfully more attractive to the non-technically minded.

I don’t think the relevance of the TLD matters. It’s worth being aware of whether you’re using a ccTLD, especially in the case of countries like Afghanistan, but you also used .io as an example which is overwhelmingly used by non-British Indian Ocean Territory sites and is proven reliable. It’s even managed by an American company.

Then .app isn’t a part of the original TLDs, but actually a part of the new wave of modern gTLDs. And if you’re considering .app, there’s no reason not to consider the thousands of other generic TLDs out there.

Like with the ccTLDs, the only thing you have to consider is the trustworthiness of the managing org.

Yes, but only if your firewall is set to reject instead of drop. The documentation you linked mentions this; that’s why open ports are listed as open|filtered because any port that’s “open” might actually be being filtered (dropped).

On a modern firewall, an nmap scan will show every port as open|filtered, regardless of whether it’s open or not.

Edit: Here’s the relevant bit from the documentation:

The most curious element of this table may be the open|filtered state. It is a symptom of the biggest challenges with UDP scanning: open ports rarely respond to empty probes. Those ports for which Nmap has a protocol-specific payload are more likely to get a response and be marked open, but for the rest, the target TCP/IP stack simply passes the empty packet up to a listening application, which usually discards it immediately as invalid. If ports in all other states would respond, then open ports could all be deduced by elimination. Unfortunately, firewalls and filtering devices are also known to drop packets without responding. So when Nmap receives no response after several attempts, it cannot determine whether the port is open or filtered. When Nmap was released, filtering devices were rare enough that Nmap could (and did) simply assume that the port was open. The Internet is better guarded now, so Nmap changed in 2004 (version 3.70) to report non-responsive UDP ports as open|filtered instead.

WG uses UDP, so as long as your firewall is configured correctly it should be impossible to scan the open port. Any packet hitting the open port that isn’t valid or doesn’t have a valid key is just dropped, same as any ports that are closed.

Most modern firewalls default to dropping packets, so you won’t be showing up in scans even with an open WG port.

Tbf, I don’t often talk to children about work, and I don’t think most adults would want me to talk to them like a child.

Plus, talking to children doesn’t come naturally to everyone. It’s certainly not fair to describe it as “very easy”.

Google destroys their own search engine by encouraging terrible SEO nonsense and then offers the solution in the form of these AI overviews, cutting results out of the picture entirely.

You search something on the Web nowadays half the results are written by AI anyway.

I don’t really care about the “human element” or whatever, but AI is such a hype train right now. It’s still early days for the tech, it still hallucinates a lot, and I fundamentally can’t trust it—even if I trusted the people making it, which I don’t.

It definitely encrypts the traffic, the problem is that it encrypts the traffic in a recognizable way that DPI can recognize. It’s easy for someone snooping on your traffic to tell that you’re using Wireguard, but because it’s encrypted they can’t tell the content of the message.

I just don’t understand why you want to copy-paste ChatGPT. Surely the parent commenter could access ChatGPT if they wanted, so you’re not bringing a new perspective. If “content” is all that matters, you could generate a thousand different ChatGPT responses and reply to their comment with each one, but that’s not acceptable. Why not?

People come here for a conversation with other people, and copy-paste ChatGPT responses don’t actually contribute to that. If all they want is information/content, there are better places to find it. They could use ChatGPT, sure, but they could also use Wikipedia or even an economics textbook. It’s up to them. Even if they use ChatGPT, they’d probably prompt it a few times in a few different ways to get the best info for them.

If you really want to use ChatGPT in your responses, why not add your own voice? When I suggested commentary I don’t mean that you should just prompt ChatGPT into pretending to be a human, I mean that you should add your own perspective. Editorialize. Pull out the good bits.

Because if people want to see what ChatGPT says, they can ask it themselves. You’re not contributing anything by copy-pasting from ChatGPT. If you have commentary on what ChatGPT had to say, that could be different, but you literally just used ChatGPT’s output as your whole comment.

There are already AI-written books flooding the market, not to mention other forms of written misinformation.

If only

Goes to show I don’t know much about SSO I suppose. Time to do some more research

I had issues connecting to Nextcloud from mobile clients when using Authelia, they didn’t like it, but if there’s a workaround for that that’s great

Most things should be behind Authelia. It’s hard to know how to help without knowing what exactly you’re doing with it but generally speaking Authelia means you can have SSO+2FA for every app, even apps that don’t provide it by default.

It also means that if you have users, you don’t need them to store a bunch of passwords.

One big thing to keep in mind is that anything with its own login system may be more involved to get working behind Authelia, like Nextcloud.

But hey, instead of killing everyone, eugenics could lead us to a beautiful stratified future, like depicted in the aspirational sci-fi utopia of Brave New World!

I agree with you, ultimately. My point is just that “good for humanity vs bad for humanity” isn’t a debate, there’s no “We want to ruin humanity” party. Most people see their own viewpoint as being best for humanity, unless they’re a psychopath or a nihilist.

There are fundamental differences in political views as well as ethical beliefs, and any attempt to boil them down to “good for humanity” vs “bad for humanity” is going to be inherently political. I think “what’s best for humanity” is a good guiding metric to determine what one finds ethical, but using it to categorize others’ political beliefs is going to be divisive at best.

In other words, it’s not comparable to the left/right axis, which may be insufficient and one-dimensional, but at least it describes something that can be somewhat objective (if controversial and ill-defined). Someone can be happy with their position on the axis. Whereas if it were good/bad, everyone would place themselves at Maximum Good, therefore it’s not really useful or comparable to the left/right paradigm.

I don’t think that “everyone is inherently equal” is a conclusion you can reach through logic. I’d argue that it’s more like an axiom, something you have to accept as true in order to build a foundation of a moral system.

This may seem like an arbitrary distinction, but I think it’s important to distinguish because some people don’t accept the axiom that “everyone is inherently equal”. Some people are simply stronger (or smarter/more “fit”) than others, they’ll argue, and it’s unjust to impose arbitrary systems of “fairness” onto them.

In fact, they may believe that it is better for humanity as a whole for those who are stronger/smarter/more fit to have positions of power over those who are not, and believe that efforts for “equality” are actually upsetting the natural way of things and thus making humanity worse off.

People who have this way of thinking largely cannot be convinced to change through pure logical argument (just as a leftist is unlikely to be swayed by the logic of a social darwinist) because their fundamental core beliefs are different, the axioms all of their logic is built on top of.

And it’s worth noting that while this system of morality is repugnant, it doesn’t inherently result in everyone killing each other like you claim. Even if you’re completely amoral, you won’t kill your neighbor because then the police will arrest you and put you on trial. Fascist governments also tend to have more punitive justice systems, to further discourage such behavior. And on the governmental side, they want to discourage random killing because they want their populace to be productive, not killing their own.

The problem with a “beneficial to humanity” axis is that I think that most people think their political beliefs, if enacted, would be beneficial to humanity. Most people aren’t the villains of their own stories.

The very act of politics is to disagree on what is best for humanity.