I’m interpreting as this man is clearly desperate for work, I’m sure he’s not being picky here. There’s an absurdness to an employer asking “well tell me why pencil selling is your passion” as if only offering labor is not enough, an employee must be enthusiastic about their labor, regardless of how mundane it is.

And really we see this everyday at ordinary job interviews.

https://github.com/ipsingh06/seedsync

I would’ve if I was wrong

If you really think someone is wrong don’t ask them “why, why, why” incessantly like a toddler, grow a pair of balls and just speak your mind.

And in this case I meant “your IP” as in, the grand scheme of things “an IP address that you own”, a VPS for instance, not necessarily the destination. Obviously you wouldn’t need to tell a firewall what its own public IP is. Have I clarified my thought to your standards?

No fucking shit? In that scenario your friend could use DDNS and you point your access rule to his FQDN to allow access.

Did you really ask me a billion fucking “why” questions just to come back and fucking what prove me wrong? Is this a good use of your time? I literally thought you were a noobie looking to understand.

Fuck off.

An access rule for instance. To say to allow all traffic or specific types of traffic from a public IP address. This could be if you wanted to allow access to some media server from your friends house or something.

If OP needs a firewall rule to do any number of things that a firewall does.

Because you’re not going to setup any rules pointed to a dynamic public IP address. Otherwise you’re going to be finding a way to change the rule every time the ip changes.

The ddns automatically updates an A record with your public IP address any time it changes, so yeah the rules would use the fqdn for that A record.

To resolve whatever hostname you’ve setup for ddns

As long as whatever firewall rules you’re using is capable of resolving FQDNs then I don’t see an advantage of doing this. Maybe in the off chance that your IP changes, someone else gets the old IP and exploits it before the DDNS setup has a chance to update. I think that’s really unlikely.

Edit: just to add to this, I do think static IPs are preferable to DDNS, just because it’s easier, but they also typically cost money.

I’m being facetious but the amount of apps between the chromecast and Roku is enormous. I’m sure it has most major apps, but as soon as I plugged it in and it didn’t even have an emby app, it went straight back to the store. Just relies way too much on casting, which I understand like any app can do but I don’t like that.

Is there even more than 4 apps in the store?

So here’s my two cents:

I think that if you have a bunch of services, then you should use caddy or Apache or nginx. doing this in caddy and Apache is not that difficult, but I understand the hesitation (I don’t have much experience with nginx)

If you just want to get something working you could do bookmarks with the http://host.whatever.com:port and that would be Gucci.

You could also use another registrar or name server besides Cloudflare to make URL redirect records. This is like an A record but it also includes a port. This is not a standard type of record, but some places will do it like Namecheap.

Again, if you want to do it the right and best way, then I do think a reverse proxy is the way to go.

And what better person to answer that question than Mr. Bitwarden himself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitwarden/comments/1b32bbz/going_native_the_future_of_the_bitwarden_mobile/

-1 for Netdata. I used it for a bit, but the configuration is not very intuitive and the docs for alerts were basically “rest of the fucking owl”, at least for the non-cloud version. I ended up just switching to Glances which is pretty boneless but it’s easy.

Though for OP I’d probably recommend Prometheus.

I just get mine from the massgrave guy

https://massgrave.dev/genuine-installation-media

It’s at /app/public/conf.yml within the container. But I suppose you’re asking how you would pull it out? I’d probably just get into the container interactively and just copy the contents of that file. I would suggest using volumes in the future for persistent data.

Sure, anyone can sue for any reason. That doesn’t mean that a case will be successful. I do agree with you that there if a transfer of liability, until the car tells the driver that manual intervention is needed. But also, this can be used on only specific roads, under specific weather and traffic conditions, I really don’t think it’s much to ask of a robot to do. It actually seems like a pretty boring level of autonomy.

Sued for what?

Seems kind of meh