I like having friends where I can just say that and they understand, but I also understand that’s hard to achieve.

Specifically these issues: https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415

The big one is that video/audio playing endpoints can be used without authentication. However, you have to guess a UUID. If Jellyfin is using UUIDv4 (fully random), then this shouldn’t be an issue; the search space is too big. However, many of the other types of UUIDs could hypothetically be enumerated through brute force. I’m not sure what Jellyfin uses for UUIDs.

Be the reason they had to put up a sign.

Maybe not in this case, though.

Why I change my own oil. Not because I save money–generally don’t even before your time is factored in–but because I know how to put on an oil pan bolt without cross threading it.

It just needs to be clear and set close to the max fill line. If it’s low and/or dark, it wasn’t done right.

Alternatively, if you’re in a place dedicated to oil changes, you can assume it wasn’t done right.

Nah, setting non-standard ports is sound advice in security circles.

People misunderstand the “no security through obscurity” phrase. If you build security as a chain, where the chain is only as good as the weakest link, then it’s bad. But if you build security in layers, like a castle, then it can only help. It’s OK for a layer to be weak when there are other layers behind it.

Even better, non-standard ports will make 99% of threats go away. They automate scans that are just looking for anything they can break. If they don’t see the open ports, they move on. Won’t stop a determined attacker, of course, but that’s what other layers are for.

As long as there’s real security otherwise (TLS, good passwords, etc), it’s fine.

If anyone says “that’s a false sense of security”, ignore them. They’ve replaced thinking with a cliche.

The future conservatives want is the same except it’s men in fashy uniforms. We don’t even have to speculate or joke; it’s exactly how mines are run in countries without worker protections.

Conservatives don’t make that distinction. Though OP does lean into Poe’s Law.

Origami can be used as a basis for geometry:

http://origametry.net/omfiles/geoconst.html

IIRC, you can do things that are impossible in standard Euclidean construction, such as squaring the circle. It also has more axioms than Euclidean construction, so maybe it’s not a completely fair comparison.