Your response is both unnecessarily aggressive and plainly wrong.
Yes, Plex _should_ work without an internet gateway. Why? Because it’s a client/server media application; it transcodes media to clients/players over the network.
Plex used to work like this. Actually, it was exclusively unauthenticated. Then early 10s they added optional auth, and eventually allowed you to reserve “server names”, and finally enforced with for running their server. But you can still use a client without auth today. Just read their docs: https://support.plex.tv/articles/200890058-authentication-fo...
Correct, that was my intent - Ben isn't the proper channel as he is just an engineer responding to comments here. Stuff like this is serious and so should be escalated.
A nation is only ultimately responsible to its citizens. I care not about illegals being deported - in fact, I support it.
The US certainly is not leading the scoreboard in the murder of my people; I regret to inform you that my own people lead the scoreboard in their own murder.
I remember hearing someone complain on HN of their site getting blocked because it shared an IP with an illegal soccer livestream. I can’t imagine they’re doing this to IP blocks owned by CDNs like Fastly, CloudFlare, or CloudFront though. Or are they? Does this regularly break most of the internet for UK customers?
TBH it is not ALL cloudFlare IPs but a significant quantity of sites using and not using CF CDNs. You cannot imagine what a pest that is even for legit users of legit collateral damage pages. CloudFlare is in the courts appealing/countering initial court allowance to blockade and ISPs are bound to comply to blackout requests. You can look at https://hayahora.futbol (traslation: is there soccer match now?) to see affected domains.
While I am not some reputable source per-se, I have some tailscale presence over there and can corroborate my exit nodes find cloudflare sites blanket blocked on weekends.
Seems like n=11 should have been n=1. Use 19, 21, and 1 as a numerator of /41 and you end up with all the same percentages written in the abstract. A typo that should have been caught, but surely nothing more than that and certainly not substantive enough to qualify the claim below:
> This paper is very bad. The numbers in the abstract don’t even add up, which any reviewer should have caught.
> A typo that should have been caught, but surely nothing more than that and certainly not substantive enough to qualify the claim below:
Such an obvious error should have been caught by the authors proofreading their own work, to be honest. Any reviewer would also catch it when evaluating the quality of the sample size.
I find it strange that people are bending over backward to defend this paper and its obvious flaws and limitations.
Does one need to be gullible to believe this? Or will you substantiate your extraordinary claim?
reply