Sick burns

licks the edible paper, but it tastes like plant

meows

The only proper response.

Interesting how you use “simple” and “mail server” in the same sentence.

Near death experience?

That comment was fun. Kinda typically a bit of a snarky comment, but really came off as nice and wholesome in context.

I thought docking didn’t involved noses.

What you probably want is a dmz or red/green localnets. A reverse proxy (as others have mentioned) like haproxy or nginx) are extremely unlikely to, themselves, be hacked. But they don’t really add security, either.

What does add security is to have a router with a firewall, with one or more red networks, and a green network.

The red network has all of your public-facing servers. They have virtually no external access, and no internal access except to respond. It’s even good to have a rule on the router that you can turn on/off that blocks all outbound connections from the red network to the external world. To upgrade a server, turn off the rule, upgrade, and then turn the rule on again. The router only forwards inbound connections from the internet on a specific port, and routes them to the server/servers on the red network(s) on a (possibly different) specific port.

Most ownage-style hacks involve (once compromised) either calling home (can’t if the server is not allowed outbound connections) or opening an additional port (who cares, the router will never forward anything to that port).

Then, back up your important info, and keep multiple copies of that info - daily for a week, monthly for a few months, and yearly.

I do say that with certainty. And I didn’t claim that proof of stake has no environmental impact - it just doesn’t have more impact than, for example, a web server.

If I start a carbon-neutral wing of an oil company, of course it doesn’t make an oil company carbon-neutral. However, that doesn’t impact the real value of other companies that actually are carbon neutral.

Similarly, Ethereum is, by far, not a “green” tech, and their usage of proof of stake can easily and reasonably be called greenwashing if they don’t also severely limit the usage of POW.

Proof of Stake, though, is not a power-hungry tech, period. And it is a means for crypto to become, overall, a nominal energy user. There are other chains out there (cardano, algorand, nano, and many others) that don’t use PoW and that use reasonable amounts of energy.

I appreciate your passion for the environment. But misrepresentation does not help your case, though misrepresentation may help those your fight.

Well said. Solid facts.

Not “especially”, but “specifically” POW. I don’t agree about their worthlessness, but even if I did, it’s POW that’s shitting on the environment, not other systems.

Think of it like this:

• there’s a syncthing share
• you connect any devices you want to that share
• each device uses a local folder to act as that share
• the devices need to know each other

Then, syncthing sorts it all out. You can move a file into the share on phone1, and it’ll show up on phone2. Move it out of that share on phone2, and it disappears from phone1. Same deal for any other device connected to that share.

You can make this all simpler by using the same name for the share and on all folders:

• A share named Kim-n-Max
• A folder named /storage/emulated/0/shares/Kim-n-Max on Max’s phone
• A folder named /storage/Kim-n-Max on Kim’s phone
• A folder named c:\Users\Max\Kim-n-Max on Max’s computer

…all is pretty clear then.

Mango mail, porkbun, proton mail

Each does a slightly different niche.

Mango is cheap, but limits outbound mail. Porkbun has a good all-around mail service, bit is a little more costly. Proton is very secure, but can be inconvenient for export (though it can be done, it requires purchase of a month of business service to export away from them).

Trillium. Excellent, searchable, tool for interlinked data, plus (decently strong, depending on you) password encryption for tree branches.

https://github.com/zadam/trilium

• It’s not PHP
• It’s already implemented in browsers

Well, to play devil’s advocate - and species eating it’s own on the regular would be a failure - but much more so for one whose primary strength is working together.

I’m referring to the laws of the universe, which have not always been consistent. A strange attractor can form states that are temporarily dynamically stable - and for something like the universe, we may not notice any small changes to ‘constants,’ as we are directly subject to them (including our tools of measurement). Aside from that, change is likely so slow that we may not even notice it.

Nevertheless, if the big bang is in any form to be believes, we must accept that the universe’s basic laws can change, and yet they enter states where they do not noticeably change. If the pattern of the rest of nature holds (massive numbers of similar forms and structures distributed over time and space, where rough repetition along a common theme is a common theme), the universe will probably do similarly.

What would be incredibly odd would be:

• something came into existence from nothing
• that something happened for a while
• that something basically stops happening due to even distribution of energy throughout space
• end of story

Or

• no consistency whatsoever

Either of those seem unlikely. But, of course, I live in this universe, so I could be biased. :-)

I meant a strange attractor, but I think it also has prostitutes properties of a strange loop.

A strange loop is a hierarchy, or heterarchy, where as you proceed ‘up’ the hierarchy, you eventually arrive where you started.

A strange attractor is a system which, although never quite having the exact same state, cycles around the same general set of states. One way of thinking of this is “a loop which never quite mets up with itself”. An interesting example of this would be a three+ body gravitational system where the bodies are of comparable mass, and no stabilizing elements are present. Odds are very against them actually striking each other, but orbits are virtually completely unpredictable. Nevertheless, they won’t eject any of the bodies, so they will always be in the same general region.

As applied to the universe, you could set the ‘laws’ of the universe as values on a manifold, and these ‘laws’ would flex and shift as the overall state of the universe changes, but the universe would cycle around within a probability niche - a strange attractor. There’s also a potential it could leave that probability niche and ‘fall’ into, or enter into, another. One such probability niche would be the very strong tendencies of the universe - the ‘laws’ of the universe - as we know them.

What caused the initial imbalance, and what prevents it from happening again?

Nothing. It’s happening, and has always been. Anything that claims the universe as a whole is deteriorating is absolute bollocks, as it requires a creation myth, just as it postulates destruction.

If the universe is anything that we currently have theories for, the universe is a strange loop.

Interesting, but i have to disagree with “and therefore the universe should look the same in every direction.”

Everywhere we look, we see asymmetry and variegation, along with instances of homogeneity and monoculture, as one thing wins out in a small domain.

So, yes, in some sense, same in all directions, but that “sameness” sure has a heck of a lot of play. And not being special, per se, doesn’t mean lack of uniqueness. Even cloned plants on the same shelf have differing viewpoints, though perhaps not “privileged”, unless one happens to be closer to a sunny window. But that happens.

I’ve also thought about life being an expression of entropy increase, but I can’t say I fully agree. There are aspects of that at play - somewhat more noticeable in thought and consciousness, and the efficiency of organizing thought - but I think that an assumption of universal entropy is just another local-phenomena-first issue. Although it applies in systems we isolate from the universe as a whole, the broad tendency for substance clumps (i.e., organization) and variegation is also universal.