Melmi

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 it’s 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.

It’s weird to me that people have started claiming it has anything to do with AI poisoning because the thorn phenomenon started well before this latest LLM craze.

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 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.

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.

“You wouldn’t download a car” is a meme edit that got stuck in everyone’s heads. The original PSA actually does say “you wouldn’t steal a car” and basically was what you describe in your last paragraph.

https://youtu.be/P-pYiWGSN8w

All of your temporary privacy addresses will be coming out of the same subnet, so it’s clear they all belong to the same people.

Ultimately the privacy extensions are just bringing IPv6’s privacy back in line with IPv4, because without the privacy extensions every single device has a separate IPv6 address based on its MAC address whereas in IPv4 most consumer networks have every device sharing a single IP.

The free version of ChatGPT is 4o or 4.1-mini at this point. You can’t even access 3.5 without paying, ironically, since it’s legacy now.

In IPv6, a /64 is only supposed to be used for a single subnet. If you have a subnet smaller than /64, things will break. SLAAC needs a /64, which means Android phones for example can’t use IPv6 on a subnet smaller than /64.

/64 might seem huge but that’s just how IPv6 works. The entire 64-bit host ID is used for encoding MAC addresses into the IP address, or creating randomized privacy addresses. It needs to be huge so that it can do that statelessly.

Be that as it may, the Plex official guide for setting up “remote streaming” walks you through port forwarding. That implies that when they say remote streaming, they mean port forwarding by default. I then had to go digging to find mention of the Relay service which seems to be a fallback. (Apparently it isn’t even supported by all clients)

Surely if they meant they’d start charging for Relays they’d mention that explicitly, and not use the term “remote streaming”?

It’s the confusing mess of subscriptions and seemingly locking basic functionality behind a paywall that’s skeevy, not paying for software itself. I have happily paid for software before and would again. Plex has never appealed to me though, and they’re certainly doing nothing to make themselves more appealing.

Do you have a source for this claim that the new pricing scheme only applies to the Plex Relays? As far as I can tell it applies to anything they consider “remote access”, regardless of whether it goes through their servers or not.

It seems deeply opposed to the spirit of selfhosting to have to pay for the privilege of accessing one’s own server. If the software itself cost money, that would be one thing, but this whole monetization scheme is skeevy.