It depends on how you want to do it; how your reverse proxy server is setup. I use Pangolin running on a VPS as my proxy server. It uses a tunnel (“Newt”) between web servers running on my home network and the VPS, so I don’t need any open/forwarded ports on my home router.

I’ll need to know a little more about your setup. Sending DM…

An A record maps to an IP address. A CNAME record maps to another URL. Since you are trying to map to an IP address rather than a URL, you will want an A record.

If all of your sites will be served from the same proxy server at 204.230.30.104, you can create a single, wildcard A record for *.newexample.com. This will point every subdomain to your proxy’s IP address. You don’t need to create an A record for each subdomain.

If you are planning on serving some subdomains from 204.230.30.104 and other subdomains from another proxy at 69.4.20.187, you would need multiple A records for pointing the subdomains toward their respective proxies.

If you wanted to serve from proxy running on a dynamic IP address, and you’re using a DDNS provider to point newexample.ddns.net back to your current IP address, you could use a CNAME record to point newexample.com to newexample.ddns.net.

Except for your first sentence, I would agree with you. Don’t hurt people directly though. Starting a war helps no one.

You seem to be assuming I meant some sort of unlawful harm. My phrasing was quite deliberate: I advocated no specific actions whatsoever. You brought “hurt people” and “starting a war” into this conversation; not I.

The choice of what actions to take is left to you; I am not involving myself in that decision. My advocacy is strictly limited to the choice of targets: Do not take direct action against ICE agents. They are merely a distraction from the problem class. Redirect any action you might choose to take against ICE to the people getting rich while the rest of us starve.

I will raise one point:

The point of protesting is to shame leaders into change.

Our leaders are shameless. There is no point in trying to shame the shameless. The purpose of protesting must be something else. Otherwise, protesting is pointless.

If Vance initiates 25th amendment proceedings before January 20th, 2027, he sacrifices the possibility of a second term.

Whatever you want to do to an ICE agent, do instead to the people living in the biggest house you can find.

ICE is in your neighborhood because the ruling class wants them in your neighborhood. The more you fight, the more they send to the fight. Don’t protest ICE in your own neighborhood. Protest ICE in a ruling-class neighborhood.

Not a protractor. Dividers. But the fact that you don’t know that is consistent with your comment.

How long does it take to train, and how much would I earn while training, if I elected to quit after training, but prior to any operational assignment?

A formal, legal right to privacy is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Kids will gain the formal right to privacy at some point in their lives, and they will review their childhood experiences through the lens of a competent, adult mind. When they come across memories of being secretly spied upon, a healthy kid should feel that they were victimized.

An unhealthy (former) kid will deem such invasions of privacy as normal, acceptable behavior and is very likely to go on to victimize others. Perhaps their own kids; perhaps other people. Perhaps they will simply support anti-privacy issues like this one when they come up.

The general case is that non-consensual recording is a crime. Denying the kid the personal agency to prosecute the offender is just another way in which the kid is victimized.

Being generous, what you described doesn’t seem unreasonable on its own. My criticism is based on the context of this discussion: using stuffed animals to record children.

You responded to a query about whether using stuffed animals to record children violated children’s privacy with “In my experience, absolutely not.”

Re-reading your points, you seem to be talking about supervising text conversations between kids. That’s a completely separate issue. It can be reasonable to read their conversations, if you have raised this possibility with them, and discussed the purpose of doing so.

But this thread is about IoT Teddy Bears, not text messages. Charitably, I have to assume you are simply off topic, and my only real criticism is that discussing the contents of those messages with anyone but them violates their privacy.

If and when a kid comes across this discussion, I want to make sure they are aware of just how egregious a violation it is to have hidden recording devices in their personal space. In most jurisdictions, recording without the knowledge and consent of at least one party to the conversation is considered “wiretapping” or “eavesdropping”, and is not just a violation of their privacy; it is a criminal act. If anyone - including your parents - has listening or other recording devices installed in your personal space, you should tell teachers, guidance counselors, principals, and similar trusted adults.

And now you’re outing your child’s private conversations to the general public?

What the hell is wrong with you?

This is the cringiest thing I’ve read this week.

There is another major advantage…

There is a major problem with solar and wind. Daily and seasonal variation in solar flux and wind speed forces us to size our renewable generators based on their minimum expected output. We have to install enough solar panels that we can supply our needs with only low-angle sunlight on short, winter days. But we won’t do that, because that many solar panels are about four times what we need to supply our needs on long summer days. With that much oversupply on the grid, generators won’t be able to command sufficient revenue to justify that number of panels. But we need that number of panels to supply our winter demands.

We can match a large percentage of daily variation with sufficient grid-scale storage. We fill up reservoirs with our excess mid-day production, and run that water through hydropower plants overnight. But it is simply not possible to expand storage sufficiently to match seasonal variation.

If we build out sufficient solar generation capacity to meet winter demand, we don’t need seasonal storage. The problem we have becomes one of seasonal oversupply. The solution to that problem is an increase in demand. We need energy-intensive products that can be brought online in daylight hours from spring to autumn, then shut down for winter.

Producing net carbon-zero fuels could very well create part of the demand needed to justify massive expansion of our renewable power grid.

Liquid fuels have a couple advantages in certain scenarios. Aircraft, for example. The energy density of liquid fuels is considerably higher than batteries. Aircraft only take on as much fuel as they need to safely reach their destination. They takeoff with more weight than they can safely land, burning off fuel weight throughout their flight until they are light enough to land. Dumping fuel overboard to get down to landing weight in an emergency.

Switch these aircraft over to batteries, and their landing weight is the same as their takeoff weight. They carry the same “fuel” weight for a regional flight as they do for a maxinum-range flight.

You evidently have displayport, so the solution seems pretty straightforward. Pull hard disks, install windows on a blank SSD. Send series of nastygrams to MSI.

Uh, my argument was the reverse: That it is celebrity worship, and that celebrities have proven substantially more effective presidents. Reagan and Trump have easily been the most influential presidents since Truman, and only because Truman used the bomb.

My point was that the problem with celebrities in the White House has been their right-wing agendas, not their celebrity status. Their celebrity status enabled them to achieve their agendas in a way that the other, mediocre presidents couldn’t.

Why should we select yet another boring, ignoreable, mainstream, career politician instead?

Exactly. The role of the president is defined by the president. They have a cabinet for a reason; they don’t need to be experts in everything.

Presidents entering office with celebrity status have proven extraordinarily capable of pushing their agendas. The problem isn’t “celebrity”. The problem is that their agendas have sucked. Stewart’s agenda doesn’t suck.

Reagan and Trump have proven that actors and media personalities are extraordinarily good at pushing their agendas. The problem isn’t that they were/are celebrities. The problem is that their agendas suck.

Stewart has consistently demonstrated his agenda, on the air and as a lobbyist. His agenda doesn’t suck. His agenda is what this country has been looking for my entire lifetime.

Don’t cockblock my candidate.

The screws don’t even reach through the drywall?