melmi

Yeah, fair enough. To my mind I guess I don't think of array indexes as an example of actual zero based numbering, simply a quirk of how pointers work. I don't see why one starting from zero has anything to do with the other starting from zero. They're separate things in my head. Interestingly, the article you linked does mention this argument:

Referencing memory by an address and an offset is represented directly in computer hardware on virtually all computer architectures, so this design detail in C makes compilation easier, at the cost of some human factors. In this context using "zeroth" as an ordinal is not strictly correct, but a widespread habit in this profession.

That said, I suppose I still use normal one-based numbering because that's how I'm used to everything else working.

Indexes start from zero because they're memory offsets, but array[0] is still the first element because it's an ordinal number, not an offset. It's literally counting each element of the array. It lines up with the cardinality—you wouldn't say ['A', 'B', 'C'] has two elements, despite array[2] being the last element.

When done correctly, the banner is actually a consent banner. It's a legal thing, not necessarily trying to discourage criminals. It's informing users that all use will be monitored and it implies their consent to the technology policies of the organization. It's more for regular users than criminals.

When it's just "unauthorized access is prohibited", though, especially on a single-user server? Not really any point. But since this article was based on compliance guidelines that aren't all relevant to the homelab, I can see how it got warped into the empty "you no hack" banner.

That 10Gb link is almost certainly oversubscribed, though. You don't actually have 10 Gb of dedicated constant bandwidth, you just have access to 10Gb of potential bandwidth. You're unlikely to saturate that link very often, so you won't notice, but it's shared with other people.

It's different from Google or any other company paying for bandwidth that's being actually used, not just a pre-allocated link like your home internet.

I can kind of see where he's coming from, but only if you're weighing it against an assumed future where we're going to die out tomorrow. That's a low bar for hopeful, and certainly not "100% positive".

I have a hard time seeing I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream or even worse, All Tomorrows, as "hopeful". I'd honestly rather just die.

Plus, not all sci-fi involves humans, and not all sci-fi is in the future. There's scifi with no humans in it, there's scifi set in the past or in an alternate present, and none of those qualify as "hopeful by default" in the way he defines it any more than any other fiction does.

But how will you get a "universal" view of the fediverse? No single authoritative view exists.

You yourself acknowledge that this is complicated, but I honestly don't understand what appeal a hacked together fake centralized system would have for people if they don't care about decentralization in the first place. Any such solution is almost inevitably gonna end up being janky and hacked together just to present a façade of worse Reddit.

Lemmy's strength is its decentralization and federation. It's not a problem to be solved, it's a feature that's attractive in its own right. It doesn't need mass appeal, it's a niche project and probably always will be. I don't think papering over the fundamental design of the software will make it meaningfully more attractive to the non-technically minded.

I don't think the relevance of the TLD matters. It's worth being aware of whether you're using a ccTLD, especially in the case of countries like Afghanistan, but you also used .io as an example which is overwhelmingly used by non-British Indian Ocean Territory sites and is proven reliable. It's even managed by an American company.

Then .app isn't a part of the original TLDs, but actually a part of the new wave of modern gTLDs. And if you're considering .app, there's no reason not to consider the thousands of other generic TLDs out there.

Like with the ccTLDs, the only thing you have to consider is the trustworthiness of the managing org.

Yes, but only if your firewall is set to reject instead of drop. The documentation you linked mentions this; that's why open ports are listed as open|filtered because any port that's "open" might actually be being filtered (dropped).

On a modern firewall, an nmap scan will show every port as open|filtered, regardless of whether it's open or not.

Edit: Here's the relevant bit from the documentation:

The most curious element of this table may be the open|filtered state. It is a symptom of the biggest challenges with UDP scanning: open ports rarely respond to empty probes. Those ports for which Nmap has a protocol-specific payload are more likely to get a response and be marked open, but for the rest, the target TCP/IP stack simply passes the empty packet up to a listening application, which usually discards it immediately as invalid. If ports in all other states would respond, then open ports could all be deduced by elimination. Unfortunately, firewalls and filtering devices are also known to drop packets without responding. So when Nmap receives no response after several attempts, it cannot determine whether the port is open or filtered. When Nmap was released, filtering devices were rare enough that Nmap could (and did) simply assume that the port was open. The Internet is better guarded now, so Nmap changed in 2004 (version 3.70) to report non-responsive UDP ports as open|filtered instead.

WG uses UDP, so as long as your firewall is configured correctly it should be impossible to scan the open port. Any packet hitting the open port that isn't valid or doesn't have a valid key is just dropped, same as any ports that are closed.

Most modern firewalls default to dropping packets, so you won't be showing up in scans even with an open WG port.

Tbf, I don't often talk to children about work, and I don't think most adults would want me to talk to them like a child.

Plus, talking to children doesn't come naturally to everyone. It's certainly not fair to describe it as "very easy".

The "make a fork" thing is part of the issue, I think. In general there's this culture in the open source community that if you want a feature, you should implement it yourself and not expect the maintainers to implement it for you. And that's good advice to some extent, it's great to encourage more people to volunteer and it's great to discourage entitlement.

But on the other hand, this is toxic because not everyone can contribute. Telling non-technical users to "make it yourself" is essentially telling them to fuck off. To use the house metaphor, people don't usually need to design and renovate their houses on their own, because that's not their skillset, and it's unreasonable to expect that anyone who wants a house should become an architect.

Even among technical users, there are reasons they can't contribute. Not everyone has time to contribute to FOSS, and that's especially notable for non-programmers who would have to get comfortable with writing code and contributing in the first place.