Fyi for point 2, you can sign with SSH key stored on a hardware token (e.g., yubikey).

Keep Tuscany, Rome, Milan, Naples and Venice and you are done for Italy.

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

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.

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

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”

Hard disagree.

Also there are plenty of opposite examples (i.e., older women celebrities dating younger guys), what is that a symptom of?

This has nothing to do with feminism imho. In fact, I would say the opposite, it’s an attempt to prescribe what women should do. Religious morality.

I would or wouldn’t do lots of things that I accept others might do. My morality is not universal. I leave this kind of thinking to religion.

And this notion that you should date only people your age where does it come from? It seems a completely arbitrary moral claim to me.

People are allowed to date for whatever reason they want. As long as two adults are freely consenting it’s not up to you to be the moral police and decide what should push people to date each other.

They can date for the looks, to look or feel younger, to go outside their comfort zone, for sexual pleasure, for pure intellectual attraction, for material benefit, for […long list].

This is one of the instances in which the good goal of fighting abuse becomes bigotry. It’s basically like religious moralism.