Melmi

You would think…

Yeah, I can see that. It’s definitely more like a search index than a web crawler. It’s not great at being a search index though, since it can synthesize ideas but can’t reliably tell you where it got them from in the first place.

Calling it a web crawler is just innacurate. You can give it access to a web search engine, which is how the “AI search engines” work, but LLMs can’t access the internet on their own. They’re completely self-contained unless you give them tools that let them do other things.

Only the 14% statistic was explicitly about IPTV, the others are about “consuming content illegally”. It seems like maybe there are multiple surveys involved?

Only giving a /64 breaks stuff, but some ISPs do it anyway. With only a /64 you can’t subnet your network at all.

Giving a /48 is spec, but a lot of ISPs are too stingy :/

“You wouldn’t download a car” is a meme edit that got stuck in everyone’s heads. The original PSA actually does say “you wouldn’t steal a car” and basically was what you describe in your last paragraph.

https://youtu.be/P-pYiWGSN8w

Being able to sell FOSS is one of the freedoms “free software” refers to.

Honestly though I think the thing that struck me the most and I found kind of scummy was their “value statement” where they were advertising the OS by comparing it to the prices of the proprietary software is includes alternatives to. You misreading the website wasn’t an accident, they designed it in a deceptive way IMO.

If they were more honest about it, I wouldn’t have any problem with them charging for the convenience of having everything pre-bundled. Of course you could set everything up yourself, but Linux is notoriously finnicky. People want a complete experience, they want support. They want the slick branding.

As far as I know Zorin is FOSS, for what it’s worth. It’s mostly just bundled FOSS software with some slick themes and accessibility features, plus a few in-house system apps which they do seem to provide sources for.

They mention that it’s open source on their website but they don’t mention FOSS probably because the libre/gratis distinction is confusing for people.

Editing the systemd services seems a neat solution here. Rather than editing the package-provided service files directly, you can create overrides using systemctl edit.

Another more hacky option would be to use the PostUp directive but account for the case there’s no tailscale0 device yet. Write a simple shell script or something.

In IPv6, a /64 is only supposed to be used for a single subnet. If you have a subnet smaller than /64, things will break. SLAAC needs a /64, which means Android phones for example can’t use IPv6 on a subnet smaller than /64.

/64 might seem huge but that’s just how IPv6 works. The entire 64-bit host ID is used for encoding MAC addresses into the IP address, or creating randomized privacy addresses. It needs to be huge so that it can do that statelessly.

If you think this is annoying to play, try simulating 4D chess by lining up four of these 3D chess sets

One use for wireguard in a container is that if you’re using other containers on the same host you can use container magic to route the traffic of specific containers through the wireguard tunnel, while other containers bypass the tunnel.

Yeah, fair enough. To my mind I guess I don’t think of array indexes as an example of actual zero based numbering, simply a quirk of how pointers work. I don’t see why one starting from zero has anything to do with the other starting from zero. They’re separate things in my head. Interestingly, the article you linked does mention this argument:

Referencing memory by an address and an offset is represented directly in computer hardware on virtually all computer architectures, so this design detail in C makes compilation easier, at the cost of some human factors. In this context using “zeroth” as an ordinal is not strictly correct, but a widespread habit in this profession.

That said, I suppose I still use normal one-based numbering because that’s how I’m used to everything else working.

Indexes start from zero because they’re memory offsets, but array[0] is still the first element because it’s an ordinal number, not an offset. It’s literally counting each element of the array. It lines up with the cardinality—you wouldn’t say ['A', 'B', 'C'] has two elements, despite array[2] being the last element.

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.

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”.