Further into the article, it describes a study done on mice that implies a causal link.
Just wait for your eye appointment. Looking up symptoms online always gives worst-case scenario results. Don't worry about anything you see online unless your doctor tells you to.
You're second point is a good one, but you absolutely can log the IP which requested robots.txt. That's just a standard part of any http server ever, no JavaScript needed.
Be sure not to create an open resolver, something commonly used in DDoS attacks. https://serverfault.com/questions/573465/what-is-an-open-dns-resolver-and-how-can-i-protect-my-server-from-being-misused#573471
This makes perfect sense. Thank you!
That makes some amount of sense. I'm not sure exactly how each article is stitched together to create the full file. Do you happen to know if it's just put together sequentially or if there's XORing or more complex algorithm going on there? If it's only the former, they would still be hosting copyrighted content, just a bit less of it.
EDIT:
https://sabnzbd.org/wiki/extra/nzb-spec
This implies that they are just individually decoded and stitched together.
For instance, say I search for "The Dark Knight" on my Usenet indexer. It returns to me a list of uploads and where to get them via my Usenet provider. I can then download them, stitch them together, and verify that it is, indeed, The Dark Knight. All of this costs only a few dollars a month for me.
My question is, why can't copyright holders do this as well? They could follow the same process, and then send takedown requests for each individual article which comprises the movie. We already know they try to catch people torrenting so why don't they do this as well?
I can think of a few reasons, but they all seem pretty shaky.
- The content is hosted in countries where they don't have to comply with takedown requests.
It seems unlikely to me that literally all of it is hosted in places like this. Plus, the providers wouldn't be able to operate at all in countries like the US without facing legal repercussions.
- The copyright holders feel the upfront cost of indexer and provider access is greater than the cost of people pirating their content.
This also seems fishy. It's cheap enough for me as an individual to do this, and if Usenet weren't an option, I'd have to pay for 3+ streaming services to be able to watch everything I do currently. They'd literally break even with this scheme if they could only remove access to me.
- They do actually do this, but it's on a scale small enough for me not to care.
The whole point of doing this would be to make Usenet a non-viable option for piracy. If I don't care about it because it happens so rarely, then what's the point of doing it at all?
Because family or friends are always going to have them and share with you. In terms of effort, it's still a lot easier to use free-to-you streaming services (even with ads) than set up your own Jellyfin, Radarr, Sonarr, and Jellyseerr stack. I can definitely see the appeal of a streaming stick that let's you do that, is fast, and isn't riddled with ads on the home screen. Hell, I might've paid for one if I knew it existed and had less free time.
Pi 4B with 4 gigs of RAM. And yes! I was surprised, but it had absolutely no trouble with playing 4k, especially after using a wired connection.
Not easily. There are a few 3rd-party add-ons by random people which technically allow you to watch these services if you enter your account details, but the UI is generally just a list of movie and show titles with no or small thumbnails and no other info. It's worth doing this if you already have your own media server but not really otherwise.
Pi 4B with 4 gigs of RAM. You might be able to get away with 2gigs because of how well it runs for me, but idk. I didn't follow any guides for setting up the Pi or LibreElec. It's honestly super intuitive. Like I said, everything is set up through the GUI. The only slightly technical part is flashing the LibreElec image to the SD card, and even that is super easy. I did follow the Jellyfin documentation for setting up my Jellyfin server, but that's a whole other thing.
It was a Raspberry Pi 4 model B. I got it for $60 and a 25ft Ethernet cable for $10 on Amazon just because I had a gift card. You can probably find it somewhere else for cheaper. You also need a small micro SD card for the Pi. Maybe only 8 or 16 gigs because it doesn't store the media locally.
I recently stopped using my firestick. Even though I only used it for Jellyfin, the ads on the home screen were too much for me. So I swapped it out for a Raspberry Pi with LibreElec as the OS, and there have been literally no downsides.
- Jellyfin for Kodi add-on with Embuary skin shows your entire Jellyfin library on the home screen with continue watching and next up widgets right there when you turn on the TV.
- You can set it up entirely through the GUI. Works with either keyboard and mouse or remote.
- Uses HDMI-CEC so works with my TVs original remote and even my firestick remote.
- If you want to use an app remote, Kore is officially supported and has no ads.
- Invidious add-on with the Send to Kodi and libredirect Firefox extensions means I can cast YouTube videos to my TV with no ads.
- You can even run an Ethernet cable from your router/Jellyfin server to the Pi. I did this and have not experienced any buffering since.
- It even passed the spouse test. My wife says she likes that it's faster and more responsive. Plus she likes the asteroids screensaver.
Pretty good tool. I took the quiz out of curiosity, and the top result was my current distro
I think the point is that now he doesn't have to take the time to go around the house prying the batteries out and replacing them every year. A small chore to be sure, but one that I'd be happy to do any with.
Just wanted to let you know I somewhat found a solution and edited my post to reflect that.
Didn't work, unfortunately. Same exact issues
Rootless podman. The plan is to eventually move WG into a container once I get it working, but it's running on bare metal at the moment.
Nope. I can't ssh in either.
I do see the request. I'm running it inside a container so all the clients show up as the container's hostname.
I'm trying to setup Wireguard to use as a VPN on my server using this guide. I currently run Pihole on the same machine.
| | | |-|-| | LAN | 192.168.1.* | | WG | 10.14.0.* | | WG Server Addr | 10.14.0.1 | | WG Client Addr | 10.14.0.10 |
The handshake succeeds, and I can even ping IP addresses. However, it doesn't receive DNS responses. I checked in Wireshark and see the following:
| | | | |-:|-|-| | WAN Client IP -> | Server IP | [Wireguard] | | WG Client IP -> | Server IP | [DNS Request] | | Server IP -> | Server IP | [DNS Request] | | Server IP -> | Server IP | [DNS Response] | | WG Server Addr -> | WG Client Addr | [DNS Response] | | WG Client Addr -> | WG Server Addr | [ICMP Port unreachable] |
I'm admittedly pretty inexperienced when it comes to routing, but I've been at this for days with no success. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Edit
I now realize that it would have been relevant to mention the my Pihole instance was running inside a rootless podman container.
To test things further, I wrote a small echo server and spun it up on bare metal. Wireguard had no issues with that. My guess is that something between wireguard and specifically rootless podman was going wrong. I still don't know what, unfortunately.
My fix was to put Pihole in a privileged podman container with a network and static IP e.g. --net bridge:ip=10.88.0.230. I also put wireguard into a privileged podman container on the same network --net bridge. Finally, I set the peer DNS to the Pihole's static IP on the podman network (10.88.0.230).
As I said before, I still don't know why podman wasn't replying to the correct IP initially. I'm happy with my fix, but I'd still prefer the containers to be rootless so feel free to message me if you have any suggestions.