I used to do this, but then why revealing even my domain. I have bitwarden integrated with simplelogin, and I get service_garbage@aliasdomain.tld

This way I can easily filter with prefix matching (if I want to), but don’t reveal anything at all about me. Also much easier to be consistent, block senders etc. Plus, I can send emails from all those addresses if I ever need (e.g., support).

By user abc@example.com

Objdct storage is anyway something I prefer over their app. Restic(/rustic) does the backup client side. B2 or any other storage to just save the data. This way you also have no vendor lock.

Wow, those are big networks. Obviously I suppose in case of AWS it doesn’t matter as no human visitor (except maybe some VPN connection?) will visit from there.

As someone who bans /32 IPs only, is the main advantage resource consumption?

I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don’t do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.

Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don’t).

Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don’t use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.

(which doesn’t harden security as much as you think)

Would be nice to elaborate this. I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can’t be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that’s a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost “run shodab to check exposed Plex instances” attack.

No that’s the thing. Plex can also use their infra as a tunneling system. You can have remote streaming without exposing Plex publicly and without VPN. It is slow though.

Well, as an application it has a huge attack surface, it’s also able to download stuff from internet (e.g., subs) and many people run it on NAS. I run jellyfin in docker, I didn’t do a security assessment yet, but for sure it needs volume mounts, not sure about what capabilities it runs with (surely NET_BIND, and I think DAC_READ_SEARCH to avoid file ownership issues with downloaders?). Either way, I would never expose a service like that on the internet.

Not to be “achtuallying” bit VPN is not a way to remote stream, it’s a way to bring remote clients in the local network.

Likewise exposing services on the internet…not really going to happen esepcially for people - like me - that run plex/jellyfin on their NAS.

I don’t have a horse in this race, i don’t use remote streaming, I only ever streamed from my nas to my 2 TVs, and I am experimenting with jellyfin. But for those who do need remote streaming, jellyfin is going to be problematic.

what “held to a higher standard” might actually mean?

What do you mean, what can actually mean? It means that women are held to a higher standard, which means that to achieve a given result, they need to perform at a higher level compared to people not held to the same standard (males). There is no standard that women are expected to meet to sign up to - say - computer engineering, exactly like there is no standard for males to sign up to -say- psychology. In both cases though there are social pressures that make sure that the people within the spectrum of “I have vague interest in this” will be pushed one side or another depending on their gender.

In the specific case, the frame of the discussion was the women studying subjects which are male dominated (I am generalising from the specific context of computer engineering). I don’t believe “higher standards” play a role here (in general), because otherwise we could not explain many data points.

What in your opinion means being held to a higher standard in this context? And if that’s the case, how do you explain the fact that women seem to make plenty of independent educational choices in many (most, in fact) other fields, and that they generally have a higher success than men? Is this standard only applied for male dominated fields? Does it mean that males are held to a higher standard in psychology, medicine, literature etc.? Because if that’s the case, then I find this concept of standard really redundant to what I consider social pressure to adhere to gender roles.

because that’s exactly what you are doing.

Contesting the general validity of one’s experience is not at all talking about that experience, let alone contesting it. So no, I am not doing it and I don’t have any interest in doing that.

unless you’re really just tellin a woman “this unrelated data doesn’t match your life experience”

I am saying that the very relevant data (ironically, gathered as part of the respect-stop violence project) indeed doesn’t match that lived experience. Which means that perhaps that experience cannot be generalized?

If someone claims that women are held to a higher standard, I think asking “how is it possible that on average, at all levels, they get higher grades and they are the majority of students?” is a fair question. The hypothesis that women are held to a higher standard in this context would imply the obvious conclusion that only the “best” would make it, which is in direct opposition with the data that women are a substantial majority of students everywhere.

On the other hand I perfectly acknowledged that gender stereotypes exist and these do explain both sides of the equation that I presented with “unrelated data”: they explain both having a mere 13% of females in IT faculties and having 8% of males in education faculties. The same exact dynamic applies to males and females, which both - due to peer pressure, and fixed gender roles - end up being discouraged to pursue certain careers.

If “women get discouraged their whole life” was a generally valid statement, then asking “why then they are the majority of medicine students, a faculty with the toughest admission exam, a scientific faculty and also a long and hard one - 11 years in total” is also a valid question in my opinion.

So yeah, despite what you might think, while I have no interest to debate or invalidate one’s experience, maybe this cannot be generalized if there are quite glaring issues with statistical data. Why would you consider data about gender distribution in the education sector in Italy irrelevant in the context of gender dynamics in education (in Italy, since that’s what my comment discussed), is a mystery to me. It’s even more of a mystery considering that that very same data was gathered specifically within the contest of a project about women equality.

That genuinely sucks. I think that school is far from perfect even in my experience, and yet reading this I can’t help but feeling so disconnected from it. My experience has been so different.

To give some different anecdotal experience:

• scientific school in suburb of Rome
• majority males

My class of 31 in first grade saw 5 new students over the course of the 5 years. 10 people graduated. In the class, 2 female students were genuinely encouraged to be point of almost be privileged in subjects like technical drawing or math. They are the only ones that ended up leaving school with the highest grade (both of them Physics PhD now). In comparison a male student was objectively brilliant. The kind of guy who could figure out physics formulas on his own, great at math Olympics etc. Didn’t pass the last year, among other reason due to absences. No teacher ever encouraged him, and he was treated like just a guy who didn’t want to do anything. Had a strange family situation, but anyway, ultimately now works in the family bar (which is nothing bad, of course, but a massive waste of potential).

I think despite all the limitations, all the problems, my school experience was not one where these kinds of stereotypes were present. Our study groups have always been mixed etc. All our math, physics, biology, chemistry teachers have been female but one.

But what you are saying doesn’t match much the data (at least in Italy). In Italy females consistently get higher grades than miles, in all levels of school, and they do that from other women teachers (including STEM subjects).

How this matches “being held to a different standard”, for example?

They are the vast majority of schools in humanities (languages, classical studies, etc.) and all “licei” (=high schools created with the purpose of forming the ruling class back in 1920s) and they are the minority only in technical schools (which are generally lower quality schools more oriented toward professions than university) and in the scientific high school.

This also doesn’t seem to suggest any encouragement or discouragement in one direction or another, BUT it does match perfectly the culturally rigid gender stereotypes about women being more creative and fitting roles of care.

Also worth noting that women attend university in a higher % (56%) compared to men (also a result of gender stereotypes IMHO) and with higher grades on average. They are also the majority of PhD students (59%).

So my question I guess would be: why medicine and psychology are mostly and overwhelmingly women faculties, while engineering etc. are the opposite?

any interest or persuasion being dismantled and/or dismissed for decades before uni.

I wouldn’t say “any”, but I would absolutely say that interests in fields that are traditionally male-dominated are discouraged for women and viceversa (I have written in another comment, the imbalance in educational science is even higher than the one in engineering).

So I do see gender roles, I do see cultural influences about what is " for men" and “for women”, I don’t see the different standard women are held up to.

It’s quite hard to make connections between statements about adult society (I.e. workplace, reproductive rights) and what happens in teenagers in a completely shielded (and tbh, fairly inclusive) environment like schools (mostly, high school as that’s when people decide to sign up in university). Actually, possibly what happens even earlier, as many people who go to STEM faculties in university come from the “scientific high school” which is the only “liceo” where males are more than females.

On average females earn also higher grades, in all levels of school (which is why I don’t find solid the argument that women have to abide higher standard of excellence in this context).

So all this to say, I definitely think there is a cultural issue that pushes women away from STEM subjects (a phenomenon quite common in all the West), but I don’t think is what my interlocutor suggested - that is another expression of women having to meet higher standards. This wouldn’t explain the corresponding imbalance in other areas.

To make an example: 91.8% of students in teaching sciences are females. 87% of students in computer science are males. I would say that culture stereotypes and fixed gender roles are responsible for both, and instead this idea of “higher standards” seems fuzzy and explains only one side of the equation.

Curious also to note that women are absolutely the vast majority of teachers in kindergarten (99.3%!), primary school (97%), secondary school (77%) and high school (65%). While women are perfectly capable of reproducing gender oppression, it’s also fair to assume that there are plenty of women role models in STEM subjects.

Anyway, besides this long thing, I can’t find solid connections between what you posted and the topic, can you maybe elaborate your point?

Absolutely…but how does that relate to the previous topic?

Tbh, in Italy there is no much “before university” in terms of “being excellent”. The admission test was extremely easy, with a very high number of admitted students and on topics that are common to all high schools (we have a completely different school system in Italy). In fact, the vast majority of people in my class never studied those topics in high school. Also university costs were low (from 0 to ~2k/year depending on family income).

But I think that a mix of stereotypes (I.e. gender stereotypes), peer pressure (do you want to go study in a class 90% men) and other social issues definitely discourage all but the most motivated women to join, which is a shame.

The same exact thing applies to many other faculties of course. Psychology and “educational sciences” (literal translation) are basically just women (at least in Italy), which is exactly the same phenomenon.

Yep, if the number was not given specifically to connect that is what makes it inappropriate for me. But overall, an invite to a date besides being old fashioned is not necessarily creepy, even after long time. Of course, I don’t know if there were additional clues that made the whole thing creepy (tone of voice, phrasing etc.).

I studied computer engineering in Italy, and I can relate with the number of women being very low. I think there were maybe <10 women in the whole class on a ~60 people total after the first semester (starting with 250 people). Most of them were top of the class, which to me always suggested that while many men signed up and then “see how it goes”, only women who knew exactly what they wanted signed up.

Is that … a bad thing? I am missing something, did he take the number from somewhere or you gave it to him? But otherwise calling someone and asking out is a pretty harmless thing to do.

Run it with sudo in case you don’t see the process name with the above command.

sudo ss -patln | grep 443

That is exactly my experience!

I have been a competitive player for stuff like WoW and LoL for years, and very conservative in the types of games I play (always 1/2 max). Since I bought the deck I went deep into Hollow Knight rabbit hole and loved it, playing balatro and many other smaller indie games, chilling on the sofa and without the addicting factor of online PvP.

I get the racial stereotypation, but at least it should be funny.

Btw, taking a hunting license requires a medical exam (including psycho-physic evaluation), a basic zoology exam to recognize species, an exam on laws around hunting, one about nature preservation and one on weapons handling. It has to be renewed every 5 years.

Nothing too complicated, tons of idiots have it, but still quite a process.