litchralee

There's at least !bestoflemmy@lemmy.world

I should clarify that my original comment -- foot traffic keeps paths in decent shape -- was in answer to the OP's titular question, about why vegetation doesn't grow atop the intended walking/hiking trail. But you're right that traffic will cause other impacts, even if plantlife isn't getting in the way.

I'm in 100% agreement that for trail upkeep, people have to be mindful how they step. The advisories here in California focus on not eroding the edges of the trail, such as by walking around muddy areas, which would only make the restoration work harder and damage more of the adjacent environment. We have a lot of "stay on trail" signs. We advise people to either be prepared to go right through the mud -- only worsens an existing hole -- or don't walk that trail at all.

Obligatory reference to desire paths: !desire_paths@sh.itjust.works

Traffic -- under foot or otherwise -- is one way to keep a path in decent shape

My understanding is that the de minimis tariff treatment for import shipments is different than the duty-free personal exemptions that apply for "accompanied baggage" when re-entering the USA and has the imported items with them.

Assuming this CBP page is accurate, the $800 exemption is one of three possible exemptions that can still apply. The $1600 exemption only applies when returning with stuff from Guam, American Samoa, or USVI, and the $800 can only be claimed every 30 day. The last resort is the $200 exemption, which is always available, and ostensibly is there to allow Americans living near Canada or Mexico to not have to deal with border taxation just because they had to buy lunch or gasoline during day trips.

Yep, sometimes acetone will do that. But other times, another solvent like gasoline might do the trick. Or maybe a heat gun.

I see it as an engineering challenge, how to best remove intrusive logos from stuff. IMO, all this is part-and-parcel to the second part of: reduce, reuse, recycle. Also, sometimes certain logos can be clipped in very creative ways haha

It doesn't work for backpacks that might have the company name embroidered on, but for cheaper print-on-demand items like hats and water bottles, acetone will cause the logo to dissolve or shift.

That says, I have personally removed embroidered logos from clothes before, when the product itself is excellent but aesthetically ruined by a logo. It's very finnicky work with a seam ripper, and has gained me a lot of nice thrift store finds.

I agree with this comment, and would suggest going with the first solution (NAT loopback, aka NAT hairpin) rather than split-horizon DNS. I say this even though I have a strong dislike of NAT (and would prefer to see networks using flat IPv6 addresses, but that's a different topic). It should also be fairly quick to configure the hairpin on your router.

Specifically, problems arise when using DNS split-horizon where the same hostname might resolve to two different results, depending on which DNS nameserver is used. This is distinct from some corporate-esque DNS nameservers that refuse to answer for external requests but provide an answer to internal queries. Whereas by having no "single source of truth" (SSOT) for what a hostname should resolve to, this will inevitably make future debugging harder. And that's on top of debugging NAT issues.

Plus, DNS isn't a security feature unto itself: successful resolution of internal hostnames shouldn't increase security exposure, since a competent firewall would block access. Some might suggest that DNS queries can reveal internal addresses to an attacker, but that's the same faulty argument that suggests ICMP pings should be blocked; it shouldn't.

To be clear, ad-blocking DNS servers don't suffer from the ails of split-horizon described above, because they're intentionally declining to give a DNS response for ad-hosting hostnames, rather than giving a different response. But even if they did, one could argue the point of ad-blocking is to block adware, so we don't really care if SSOT is diminished for those hostnames.

Is this question about drivers that turn off their indicators while still mid-turn? Or about drivers that turn or change lanes in very little time at all?

IMO, the correct time to use indicators is precisely when in preparation for a turning or lane-change manoeuvre, during such manoeuvre, and that's it. Once the manoeuvre is done, the indicators should be extinguished to avoid ambiguity, unless a follow-up manoeuvre is planned.

I see no logical reason to enforce a prescribed minimum for indicator time, and it's why I see minimum-three-blink on some modern cars as an anti-feature. After all, there's no minimum (nor maximum) time to prepare and make a turning manoeuvre.

To use a USA example, the driving style of Los Angeles inter-city freeways is -- for better or worse -- going to necessitate fairly quick lane changes, because of the tighter spacing between cars. In hard figures, a lane change might be prepped and done in 3 seconds. Some might say that all these drivers are violating good driving behaviors for following each other so closely, but it's sadly a practical necessity when no amount of "just one more lane" can solve the systemic issues with regional road transportation there; it's why LA is doubling down on public transit building.

Compare this with changing lanes on a rural Interstate freeway to pass a semi-truck, where a lane change can be more sedate because there might not be any other traffic in sight except for the two vehicles involved. Smooth driving on a road-trip might have this manoeuvre prepped and completed over 10-15 seconds, as the car might also be slowly accelerating while also changing lanes. Sometimes on these two-lanes-in-each-direction roads, the driver might even continue using the left indicator, but it now unambiguously indicates that they intend to fully overtake the semi-truck, and will switch on the right indicator once fully ahead and they intend to return to the right-hand lane.

In both circumstances, the indicators should remain blinking while mid-manoeuvre. Anything short of that is "too quick" in my book.

But if your question is how far in advance should drivers begin indicating before the manoeuvre, that's a joint matter of regional convention and of law. And the former usually is the strongest influence.

TL;DR: indicators indicate intent, but some people have quick intent.

Two necessary questions about you: 1) do you or your spouse have any federally-backed student loans, even if issued through a private lender? And 2) do you and your spouse currently file taxes as married filing jointly (MFJ)? From your description, it looks like you only mentioned your mortgage debt but not the type(s) of student loan debts that you or your spouse may have.

I ask these questions because from reading only that single article, the proposed change made by the Under Secretary of Education appears to only impact: a) federally-backed student loans that b) are being repaid under three of the four income-based repayment plans (specifically, PAYE, IBR, and ICR), and c) when the division of student loans between the couple would create lower repayments under the existing rules.

That last point needs some clarification: if both spouses carried equal-sized student loan debts and both spouses have the same individual income, then it's possible that there is no difference in monthly repayments whether the spouses combined their income and debts, or separated their income and debts, which is a choice that the existing rules allowed. Thus, if the existing rules are scraped and this choice goes away, this hypothetical couple is no worse off. But to be clear, I'm not an expert in how different income-based repayment plans scale with joint income, so such a hypothetical couple might not even exist.

What's important is to figure out if this even affects your situation. This is, after all, personal finance, and I save my complains about arbitrary and capricious regulatory whack-a-mole for another venue.

If you both don't have student loans, this is not an issue for you. If you both have private student loans, this is no worse off for you. If you have federally backed student loans but have no issue paying them down at the original rate, this is not an issue for you. If you have plan to, already have, or have been approved for a federal student loan income-based repayment plan, then this change might apply to you.

But if you applied (or will apply) under SAVE, this doesn't seem to affect you. Whereas if you applied/will apply under the other three, and you will absolutely not change your filing status from MFJ, then this will not affect you.

Insofar as I can glean from this article, the regulatory change removes the option to file as married filing separately (MFS) in order to potentially reduce the monthly repayment amount. If you were open to possibly switching to MFS, then you'd have to assess the likely tax increase caused by changing from MFJ to MFS, and then assess how much the monthly repayment would reduce by.

which means DNS entries in a domain, and access from the internet

The latter is not a requirement at all. Plenty of people have publicly-issued TLS certs for domain named services that aren't exposed to the public internet, or aren't using HTTP(s). If using LetsEncrypt, the DNS-01 challenge method would suffice, or can even issue a wildcard certificate for subdomains, so additional certificate issuance is not required.

If after acquiring a domain, said domain can be pointed to one of many free nameservers that provide an API which can be updated from an ACME script for automatic renewal of the LetsEncrypt certificate using DNS-01. dns.he.net is one such example.

OP has been given a variety of options, each of which come with their own tradeoffs. But public access to Jellyfin just to get a public cert is not a necessary tradeoff that OP needs to make.

Not "insecure" in the sense that they're shoddy with their encryption, no. But being free could possibly mean their incentives are not necessarily aligned with that of the free users.

In security speak, the CIA triad stands for Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. I'm not going to unduly impugn Proton VPN's credentials on data confidentiality and data integrity, but availability can be a legit security concern.

For example, if push comes to shove and Proton VPN is hit with a DDoS attack, would free tier users be the first to be disconnected to free up capacity? Alternatively, suppose the price for IP transit shoots through the roof due to weird global economics and ProtonVPN has to throttle the free tier to 10 Mbps. All VPN operators share these possibilities, but however well-meaning Proton VPN and the non-profit behind them are, economic factors can force changes that aren't great for the free users.

Now, the obv solution at such a time would be to then switch to being a paid customer. And that might be fine for lots of customers, if that ever comes to pass. But Murphy's Law makes it a habit that this scenario would play out when users are least able to prepare for it, possibly leading to some amount of unavailability.

So yes, a holistic analysis of failure points is precisely what proper security calls for. Proton VPN free tier may very well be inappropriate. But whether it rises to a serious concern or just warrants an "FYI", that will vary based on individual circumstances.

Don't. OP already said in the previous post that they only need Jellyfin access within their home. The Principle of Least Privilege tilts in favor of keeping Jellyfin off the public Internet. Even if Jellyfin were flawless -- and no program is -- the only benefit that accrues to OP is that the free tier of ProtonVPN can access Jellyfin.

Opening a large attack surface for such a modest benefit is letting the tail wag the dog. It's adding a kludge to workaround a different kludge, the latter being ProtonVPN's very weird paid tier.