Note that opening a port gives full access to that port to the next higher Network. Opening a port directly to the Internet is therefore insecure and not recommended.
It says so right there.
There are multiple ways of exposing Jellyfin to the outside - the most common ones are:
forwarding its Ports directly to the internet (not recommended!)
forwarding through a Reverse Proxy
using a VPN connection to enter the Network
use a VPS to Reverse Proxy to your home network
And there.
This smug mentality that security is unnecessary when exposing ports to the open internet reminds me of people who think its fine to drive drunk because "I've done it dozens of times before and nothing happened!" It also reminds me of the mentality of tech company VPs right before they have a massive data breach. It's quite absurd to read.
This seems like a naive viewpoint as you're exposing your whole network and everything connected to it to the open internet. Just because the port connects to Jellyfin doesnt mean there isn't some exploit or vulnerability that can allow for greater access. This is media software written by volunteers and offered for free, so I wouldn't expect Fort Knox security from it just because its FOSS. In fact, they specifically put the onus on the user to do this themselves if they so chose.
Previously you could pay a one time fee to watch remotely on Android and iOS without having the Plex Pass and now it sounds like they're rolling this into the Plex Pass and asking users to pay again.
"So check this out, I was breakin' in my new trainers by squatting in the middle of the sidewalk in my tracksuit as one does, and all of the sudden this little bloke starts choking on a Werther's Original, so i jumped into action..."
If we could trust the President and the Justice Department, these rules would be exactly what we want.
I'm saying these rules were just recently written and passed, and the people who wrote and passed this did so knowing that Trump and Noem were the people they were giving this authority to.
To frame this discussion as if the way the bill was written is good and "if it weren't for that darn president and his AG it'd be exactly what we want" is disingenuous. They crafted the bill, meant to expose a bunch of child molesters by releasing documents pertaining to their crimes, in a way that gives authority on which documents to release to one of the child molesters contained within the documents themselves.
This bill was crafted and sponsored by Democrats, and this is what they gave us when it was time to put up or shut up.
Yeah this law was just crafted with everyone involved knowing full well who the president and attorney general are, yet they still carved out these exceptions for them. Trying to whitewash this as if it was an honorable act if not for those evil people in the white house is absolute bullshit and just preemptively making excuses for even more collusion between the Dems and Republicans.
I also am not ashamed to have watched both but Discovery really felt like a chore at times because of all the forced sappyness. I thought it got pretty interesting after the time jump but the above mentioned criticism detracted from the show
This reminds me of when Oregon awarded $300 million to Oracle to build a healthcare marketplace site right after the Affordable Care Act passed. They took the money, built a site that didn't work, and the whole thing was scrapped at the last minute. We wound up using the site that had already been created by the federal government, which is still in use this very day. Also the state is currently in a deficit and wants to add tolls on our highways, increase registration costs for fuel efficient vehicles, and add a per-mile road tax so that the poorest among us can foot the bill for past decisions such as this.
I agree with the second half but disagree on the first. We do use Dalai Lama because thats what he's known as across the world (at least fron my understanding) . We didn't refer to Angela Merkel as Furher of Germany when she lead it so it seems weird to include this in the introductory summary of Hitler especially considering it's an English article. I dont think you're losing anything in translation in this example by calling him the "leader of Germany" at that time. Down below, in the verbose write-up, seems like the more appropriate place to use it.
I'm referring to the part about 3D printed meat that the previous commentor was referencing not the guy's overall tirade, his racism, or the fact that he's a piece of shit. I don't believe as a VP he thinks there's a factory floor somewhere full of 3D printers pumping meat into his product.
I don't see the benefit in fabricating stories when there are so many factual reasons to discredit him over. The rest are just distractions.
Obvious troll account.