[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

You're second point is a good one, but you absolutely can log the IP which requested robots.txt. That's just a standard part of any http server ever, no JavaScript needed.

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

This makes perfect sense. Thank you!

209

For instance, say I search for "The Dark Knight" on my Usenet indexer. It returns to me a list of uploads and where to get them via my Usenet provider. I can then download them, stitch them together, and verify that it is, indeed, The Dark Knight. All of this costs only a few dollars a month for me.

My question is, why can't copyright holders do this as well? They could follow the same process, and then send takedown requests for each individual article which comprises the movie. We already know they try to catch people torrenting so why don't they do this as well?

I can think of a few reasons, but they all seem pretty shaky.

  1. The content is hosted in countries where they don't have to comply with takedown requests.

It seems unlikely to me that literally all of it is hosted in places like this. Plus, the providers wouldn't be able to operate at all in countries like the US without facing legal repercussions.

  1. The copyright holders feel the upfront cost of indexer and provider access is greater than the cost of people pirating their content.

This also seems fishy. It's cheap enough for me as an individual to do this, and if Usenet weren't an option, I'd have to pay for 3+ streaming services to be able to watch everything I do currently. They'd literally break even with this scheme if they could only remove access to me.

  1. They do actually do this, but it's on a scale small enough for me not to care.

The whole point of doing this would be to make Usenet a non-viable option for piracy. If I don't care about it because it happens so rarely, then what's the point of doing it at all?

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Because family or friends are always going to have them and share with you. In terms of effort, it's still a lot easier to use free-to-you streaming services (even with ads) than set up your own Jellyfin, Radarr, Sonarr, and Jellyseerr stack. I can definitely see the appeal of a streaming stick that let's you do that, is fast, and isn't riddled with ads on the home screen. Hell, I might've paid for one if I knew it existed and had less free time.

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

I recently stopped using my firestick. Even though I only used it for Jellyfin, the ads on the home screen were too much for me. So I swapped it out for a Raspberry Pi with LibreElec as the OS, and there have been literally no downsides.

  1. Jellyfin for Kodi add-on with Embuary skin shows your entire Jellyfin library on the home screen with continue watching and next up widgets right there when you turn on the TV.
  2. You can set it up entirely through the GUI. Works with either keyboard and mouse or remote.
  3. Uses HDMI-CEC so works with my TVs original remote and even my firestick remote.
  4. If you want to use an app remote, Kore is officially supported and has no ads.
  5. Invidious add-on with the Send to Kodi and libredirect Firefox extensions means I can cast YouTube videos to my TV with no ads.
  6. You can even run an Ethernet cable from your router/Jellyfin server to the Pi. I did this and have not experienced any buffering since.
  7. It even passed the spouse test. My wife says she likes that it's faster and more responsive. Plus she likes the asteroids screensaver.
[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Pretty good tool. I took the quiz out of curiosity, and the top result was my current distro

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I think the point is that now he doesn't have to take the time to go around the house prying the batteries out and replacing them every year. A small chore to be sure, but one that I'd be happy to do any with.

23
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

I'm trying to setup Wireguard to use as a VPN on my server using this guide. I currently run Pihole on the same machine.

LAN 192.168.1.*
WG 10.14.0.*
WG Server Addr 10.14.0.1
WG Client Addr 10.14.0.10

The handshake succeeds, and I can even ping IP addresses. However, it doesn't receive DNS responses. I checked in Wireshark and see the following:

WAN Client IP -> Server IP [Wireguard]
WG Client IP -> Server IP [DNS Request]
Server IP -> Server IP [DNS Request]
Server IP -> Server IP [DNS Response]
WG Server Addr -> WG Client Addr [DNS Response]
WG Client Addr -> WG Server Addr [ICMP Port unreachable]

I'm admittedly pretty inexperienced when it comes to routing, but I've been at this for days with no success. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Edit

I now realize that it would have been relevant to mention the my Pihole instance was running inside a rootless podman container.

To test things further, I wrote a small echo server and spun it up on bare metal. Wireguard had no issues with that. My guess is that something between wireguard and specifically rootless podman was going wrong. I still don't know what, unfortunately.

My fix was to put Pihole in a privileged podman container with a network and static IP e.g. --net bridge:ip=10.88.0.230. I also put wireguard into a privileged podman container on the same network --net bridge. Finally, I set the peer DNS to the Pihole's static IP on the podman network (10.88.0.230).

As I said before, I still don't know why podman wasn't replying to the correct IP initially. I'm happy with my fix, but I'd still prefer the containers to be rootless so feel free to message me if you have any suggestions.

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Look into Pi-hole. It's an easy-to-setup DNS server which can run on a Raspberry Pi (or a Linux desktop/server if you have one.) You can then set your devices' DNS servers to the local address where the Pi-hole is running. Since it would be running on your local network, any requests to it shouldn't go through your ISP in the first place. I'd still recommend getting your own router anyways because this kind of ISP fuckery is more common than you'd expect. Plus, your exact configurations follow you anywhere you move. If you do end up getting one, set the local DNS server in the DHCP settings of your router to avoid having to set it on each device.

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

R.I.P.D. 2

Hear me out. I watched the first R.I.P.D. on a flight, expecting it to be enjoyably bad, but it wasn't. Instead, it was just enjoyable. The whimsical lore of combining ancient prophecy with modern people and boring bureaucracy was pretty funny. Was it an absolutely fantastic movie? No, but it was good.

The sequel, however, explored none of the above any further. Instead, it tried to replace all that with a much more dramatic tone. So when I watched this one on the flight back, it wasn't even enjoyably bad. It was just simple and dull.

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. I liked the prequel, A Deepness in the Sky even more.

[-] ShitpostCentral@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

This reads too much like a realistic ad to be a shitpost. It's perfect.

view more: next ›

ShitpostCentral

joined 1 year ago