maxwellfire

Wait so the images in your post are the after images?

I think something that contributes to people talking past each other here is a difference in belief in how necessary/desirable revolution/overthrow of the U.S government is. Like many of the people who I've talked to online, who advocate not voting and are also highly engaged, believe in revolution as the necessary alternative. Which does make sense. It's hard to believe that the system is fundamentally genocidal and not worth working within (by voting for the lesser evil) without also believing that the solution is to overthrow that system.

And in that case, we're discussing the wrong thing. Like the question isn't whether you should vote or not . it's whether the system is worth preserving (and of course what do you do to change it. How much violence in a revolution is necessary/acceptable). Like if you believe it is worth preserving, then clearly you should vote. And if you believe it isn't, there's stronger case for not voting and instead working on a revolution.

Does anyone here believe that revolution isn't necessary and also that voting for the lesser isn't necessary?

The opposite is more plausible to me: believing in the necessity of revolution while also voting

Personally I believe that revolution or its attempt is unlikely to effective and voting+activism is more effective, and also requires agreement from fewer people in order to progress on its goals. Tragically, this likely means that thousands more people will be murdered, but I don't know what can actually be effective at stopping that.

Cool!

I wouldn't worry about making a second post. We can use all the content that we can get and this is neat

I understand that you have principles. I have principles too. But it sounds like your principles are at least partly based on a personal purity, which is what I'm arguing against.

The idea that by voting for kamala, you'll be personally tainted by her actions. And that by not voting at all, you avoid this taint.

There's a good argument in my opinion for not voting if you actually believe it will lead to the best outcome. Like for example that if enough people don't vote it will cause our leader/parties/etc to do something better. I just don't think this is true. And if it's not true, what remains is a purity argument, which I find selfish, since it prioritizes your internal view of yourself over what happens to other people in the world.

I'm also absolutely in favor of third party candidates that push issues and the electorate to the left. I just think that generally they should drop out at the point when it becomes clear that they aren't going to win and endorse the person closest to them on the issues.

Docker desktop is not what most people on Linux are using. They're using docker engine directly, which doesn't run in a vm, and doesn't require virtualization if you use the same kernel inside the containers.

Beautiful

You have two options for setting up https certificates and then some more options for enabling it on the server:

1: you can generate a self signed certificate. This will make an angry scary warning in all browsers and may prevent chrome from connecting at all (I can't remember the status of this). Its security is totally fine if you are the one using the service since you can verify the key is correct

2: you can get a certificate to a domain that you own and then point it at the server. The best way to do this is probably through letsencrypt. This requires owning a domain, but those are like $12 a year, and highly recommended for any services exposed to the world. (You can continue to use a dynamic DNS setup, but you need one that supports custom domains)

Now that you have a certificate you need to know, Does the service your hosting support https directly. If it does, then you install the certificates in it and call it a day. If it doesn't, then this is where a reverse proxy is helpful. You can then setup the reverse proxy to use the certificate with https and then it will connect to the server over http. This is called SSL termination.

There's also the question of certificate renewal if you choose the letsencrypt option. Letsencrypt requires port 80 to do a certificate renewal. If you have a service already running on port 80 (on the router's external side), then you will have a conflict. This is the second case where a reverse proxy is helpful. It can allow two services (letsencrypt certificates renewal and your other service) to run on the same external port. If you don't need port 80, then you don't need it. I guess you could also setup a DNS based certificate challenge and avoid this issue. That would depend on your DNS provider.

So to summarize:

IF service doesn't support SSL/https OR (want a letsencrypt certificate AND already using port 80)

Then use a reverse proxy (or maybe do DNS challenge with letsencrypt instead)

ELSE:

You don't need one, but can still use one.

Reverse proxies don't keep anything private. That's not what they are for. And if you do use them, you still have to do port forwarding (assuming the proxy is behind your router).

For most home hosting, a reverse proxy doesn't offer any security improvement over just port forwarding directly to the server, assuming the server provides the access controls you want.

If you're looking to access your services securely (in the sense that only you will even know they exist), then what you want is a VPN (for vpns, you also often have to port forward, though sometimes the forwarding/router firewall hole punching is setup automatically). If the service already provides authentication and you want to be able to easily share it with friends/family etc then a VPN is the wrong tool too (but in this case setting up HTTPS is a must, probably through something like letsencrypt)

Now, there's a problem because companies have completely corrupted the normal meaning of a VPN with things like nordvpn that are actually more like proxies and less like VPNs. A self hosted VPN will allow you to connect to your hone network and all the services on it without having to expose those services to the internet.

In a way, VPNs often function in practice like reverse proxies. They both control traffic from the outside before it gets to things inside. But deeper than this they are quite different. A reverse proxy controls access to particular services. Usually http based and pretty much always TCP/IP or UDP/IP based. A VPN controls access to a network (hence the name virtual private network). When setup, it shows up on your clients like any other Ethernet cable or WiFi network you would plug in. You can then access other computers that are on the VPN, or given access to to the VPN though the VPN server.

The VPN softwares usually recommended for this kind of setup are wireguard/openvpn or tailscale/zerotier. The first two are more traditional VPN servers, while the second two are more distributed/"serverless" VPN tools.

I'm sorry if this is a lot of information/terminology. Feel free to ask more questions.

How will a reverse proxy help?

Things that a reverse proxy is often used for:

• making multiple services hosted on the same IP and port
• SSL termination so that the wider world speaks https and the proxy speaks http to the server. This means the server doesn't have to do its own key management
• load balancing services so multiple servers can serve the same request (technically a load balancer but I believe some reverse proxies do basic load balancing)
• adding authentication in front of services that don't have their own (note that some of the protections/utility is lost if you use http. Anyone who can see your traffic will also be able to authenticate. It's not zero protection though because random internet users probably can't see your traffic)
• probably something I'm forgetting

Do any of these match what you're trying to accomplish? What do you hope to gain by adding a reverse proxy (or maybe some other software better suited to your need)?

Edit: you say you want to keep this service 'private from the web'. What does that mean? Are you trying to have it so only clients you control can access your service? You say that you already have some services hosted publicly using port forwarding. What do you want to be different about this service? Assuming that you do need it to be secured/limited to a few known clients, you also say that these clients are too weak to run SSL. If that's the case, then you have two conflicting requirements. You can't simultaneously have a service that is secure (which generally means cryptographically) and also available to clients which cannot handle cryptography.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your situation

Another vote for the crew being excellent, and with a completely different puzzle feel than other trick taking games I've played. It's as much about the other people as the card strategy.

Thanks I'll check it out! From a brief search it looks like at the moment I'll still have to use the nvidia-libs repo to get cuda: https://github.com/bottlesdevs/Bottles/issues/3301