Melmi

Base 1 usually uses ones, because it represents summation at that point. Using zero as the numeral would be a bit awkward. Also historically zero is pretty new.

Tally marks are essentially a base 1 system.

You’re arguing two different points here. “A VPN can act as a proxy” and “A VPN that only acts as a proxy is no longer a VPN”. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

A “real” host-to-network VPN could be used as a proxy by just setting your default route through it, just like a simple host-to-host VPN could be NOT a proxy by only allowing internal IPs over the link. Would the latter example stop being a VPN if you add a default route going from one host to the other?

Fundamentally, a host-to-host VPN is still a VPN. It creates an encapsulated L2/L3 link between two points over another network. The number of hosts on either end doesn’t change that. Each end still has its own own interface address, subnet, etcetera. You could use the exact same VPN config for both a host-to-host and host-to-site VPN simply by making one of the hosts a router.

I see your point about advocating for other methods where appropriate (although personally I prefer VPNs) but I think that gatekeeping the word “VPN” is silly.

“It has effectively the same function as a proxy” isn’t the same thing as “it’s not actually a VPN”.

One could argue you’re not really using the tech to its fullest advantage, but the underlying tech is still a VPN. It’s just a VPN that’s being used as a proxy. You’re still using the same VPN protocols that could be used in production for conventional site-to-site or host-to-network VPN configurations.

Regardless, you’re the one who brought up commercial VPNs; when using OpenVPN to create a tunnel between a VPS and home server(s), it seems like it’s being used exactly to “create private communication between multiple clients”. Even by your definition that should be a VPN, right?

VPN and proxy server refer to different things. There’s lots of marketing BS around VPNs but that doesn’t make the term itself BS, they’re different and it’s relevant when you’re talking about networking.

Funny enough, there’s a point in a later book in the series where they suggest the “ultimate question’” that 42 is an answer to could be “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”

If there’s a port you want accessible from the host/other containers but not beyond the host, consider using the expose directive instead of ports. As an added bonus, you don’t need to come up with arbitrary ports to assign on the host for every container with a shared port.

IMO its more intuitive to connect to a service via container_name:443 instead of localhost:8443

The UX just isn’t there for MPV. Jellyfin isn’t always ideal but it gives an interface roughly on par with a streaming service. Why should I replace that with a tool like MPV? I don’t need keyboard controls, I watch from my couch. It seems like all downsides to me.

Sims 4 is free, and there’s a DLC unlocker that lets you get all the DLCs in your legit copy. You might have better success installing the EA app in Proton/wine, logging in a throwaway account, and then installing the official base game.

I also recommend Lutris instead of Steam for non-Steam games, I’ve found it easier to work with and it can also automatically add links back to Steam if you like having all your game in one place.

I feel like this is more likely to lead you astray than anything. An LLM bot will immediately know the alt code, while a real person will only know it if they use Windows. Lots of people use Linux, or mobile keyboards.

I don’t see how? Normal HTTP/TLS validation would still apply so you’d need port forwarding. You can’t host anything on the CGNAT IP so you can’t pass validation and they won’t issue you a cert.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You would think…

CGNAT is for IPv4, the IPv6 network is separate. But if you have IPv6 connectivity on both ends setting up WG is the same as with IPv4.

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.

I really doubt it. We could give everyone on Earth their own /48 with less than 1% of the IPv6 address space.

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

Going to other planets would require a total re-architecting of our communications infrastructure anyway. There’s such distance too it’s not really viable to have a shared internet. Even Mars would have up to 22 minute latency at peak. So I don’t think it makes sense to plan our current internet around potential future space colonization.

Even so, IPv6 is truly massive. We could give a /64 to every square centimeter of the Earth’s surface and still have IPs to spare. Frankly, I think the protocol itself will be obsolete before we run out.