MystikIncarnate

Hey, don't point it out! People are blissfully ignorant of how much they are owned. Don't try to educate them.

• corporations, probably.

Mine are.

One thing that was recommended to me by someone a while ago, is that, unless you need it for something specific, mount your media in Plex as read only.

Plex has functions where you can delete content from the library from their UI. If you need that for some reason, obviously don't make it read only. If you're hoarding the data, and therefore never delete it, or use an external system for deleting files, then RO all the way.

The only caveat to this is if you're using a local disk on the Plex system, which then shares out the drive/folder for adding new content, in which case, you're screwed. It has to be rw so the OS can add/remove data.

In my case, as I think may be common (or at least, not rare), my back end data for Plex Media is on a NAS, so it's easy to simply have the system running Plex, mount that network share as RO, and you're done. The data on the NAS can be accessed and managed by other systems RW, direct to the NAS.

Since Plex is exposed to the internet, if anyone with sufficient rights is compromised, in theory, an attacker could delete the entire contents of your media folder with it. If you limit RW access to internal systems only, then that risk can be effectively mitigated.

This I can get behind.

I don't need it on all my 18650s, but a few would be nice. Also 21700s.

Someone bring this back.

Fair enough. I haven't used spectrum, so I have no opinion. I'm not in the right country to subscribe to their service, so there's that.

Have a good day.

It's that recent. Jeez. Feels like it's been a thing for months.

Wait, what day is it? WHAT YEAR IS IT?

OH GOD

IMO, the post is centered around proton VPN, and since that's a public VPN service, it's the focus of the discussion.

Private VPNs are a very different story.

Yes and no.

Modern HTTPS connections send the URL you are connecting to in the initial hello, so the remote webserver knows what security certificate to use when you connect. A lot of web servers host multiple sites, especially for smaller webpages, and so it doesn't assume that since you connected to that specific webserver, that you're connecting to the site that the webserver is hosting, even if it's only hosting a single site.

This can leak the data to anyone sniffing the traffic.

You can also determine some traffic by IP address, this is for larger web services like Facebook, youtube and other sites of similar size. They load balance groups of IPs for their traffic, all are serving the same data. So if you connect to an IP that's owned by Facebook, for example, then your actions can be easily derived.

Since the connection is still secured by TLS, the content can't be deciphered, but the location you are going to absolutely can.

It really depends on a lot of factors.

All ISPs are legally obligated to forward that shit to you. The alerts are not from spectrum, they're just relaying the information.

Right now, copyright owners do not have legal permission to find out who you are directly without a court order. They would only seek that information if they were planning to file a lawsuit.

Media companies know, from the Napster incident, that such actions can backfire stupendously. It's rare that they even bother anymore. I can go into detail on why, but I'll leave it out for brevity.

So they send the notice to your ISP, who is legally obligated to match the information on the notice to the subscriber and forward the notice to you.

For many, this goes to an ISP provided mailbox, which most people ignore the existence of it. Clearly spectrum operates differently.

The notices are from copyright holders who have no idea who you are, and can't determine that information unless they intend to sue you. So those can be, for the most part, ignored.

It's not your ISPs fault that you got those. They couldn't give a shit less about what you do on their service, or what you download. They just want you to pay your bill every month and keep the gravy train rolling.

There's a lot I can say here, but to be terse, the money paid into (un) employment insurance is more than what is paid out normally, since some people will pay for it all their life without ever collecting, that money isn't just stored indefinitely, it's used for other things.

As a result, if a large portion of the population suddenly find themselves without work, the system will be unable to sustain itself, whether "short term" or not. All systems that rely on EI overflow funds would suddenly have a deficiency in their money flow, and considering they the people pay most of the taxes while billionaires and corporations get tax breaks so that they pay nothing, the entire social support systems would collapse quickly, as the country plunges further into debt, devaluing the countries currency.

The entire economic model is built upon things maintaining and continuing mostly as they are, pull any thread too far and the whole thing unravels.

In my country, Canada, it goes hand in hand with welfare. One will often lead into the other if things go on long enough.

There's a lot of complexity to it that I won't get into, but the unemployment system likely can't handle a rapid influx of new request, even from those that have paid into it.

Depends on where you live.