Wireguard doesn’t necessarily need to have those limitations, but it will depend in part how your VPN profile is set up.

If you configured your wireguard profile to always route all traffic over the VPN then yeah, you won’t be able to access local networks. And maybe that’s what you want, in which case fine :)

But you can also set the profile to only route traffic that is destined for an address on the target network (I.e your home network) and the rest will route as normal.

This second type of routing only works properly however when there are no address conflicts between the network you are on (i.e. someone else’s WiFi) and your home network.

For this reason if you want to do this it’s best to avoid on your own home network the common ranges almost everyone uses as default, i.e. 192.168.0.* and 10.0.0.*

I reconfigured my home network to 192.168.22.* for that reason. Now I never hit conflicts and VPN can stay on all the time but only traversed when needed :)

Its not, but you can’t just keep a passenger on your plane who is flipping out and might try something else crazy apart from that.

I chose lemm.ee mostly by chance, but I think that it’s worked out okay for me.

My impression is that it’s a mostly neutral instance which doesn’t really have a strong agenda, and federates with most other instances. This is definitely what I want, because it gives me access to the most content.

If there are communities or users I find I have issues with, I can block them myself.

I’d argue no, because they are not a resident. They are only a visitor.

Resident (noun) 1. a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis

Occupant in a housing sense is pretty synonymous with Resident legally, but in a wider sense can also mean “anyone there at the time” - especially in non-housing contexts (e.g. the occupants of a vehicle). So for the sake of eliminating all ambiguity I’d strike out Occupant, and stick with Resident as the most appropriate term.

I think “occupant” or “resident” are both better choices over “owner” for how this conceptually works.

If a family live in the house, then a child of the family could certainly invite a vampire in, despite the child not being the “owner”.

This.

It’s normal here (UK) to write “not at this address” and put it in a postbox. It will be returned for free, and this specific wording lets the sender know it was rejected because the person doesn’t live there anymore (rather than because you’re simply rejecting it)

I can write a basic regex independently, but as soon as capture groups or positive/negative lookahead or lookbehind start popping up I’m back to the docs every time.

As the video suggests, it’s an impending problem in many places in the world, US and UK included.

And the bitter truth is that all of us could have avoided this, if not for the insatiable greed of the 1%

If the wealth earned from economic growth was spread fairly, we could all be working half the hours we do now, with all the time for socialising and family we could want.

And the real irony is that when people have more free time, they will spend their time and money on the culturally enriching things that the government is otherwise being forced to try and subsidise and give grants to keep afloat. Visit historical sites. See a play, pick up a creative hobby, eat out at independent small restaurants.

But instead we are working longer and longer hours for less, leaving us with no time for anything, and that sends all our surplus money into the exact industries that are exploiting us. 11PM depression impulse buys from online megacorps, and food delivery through gig economy apps where the delivery person gets next to nothing and the app reaps the rewards.

People are stretched to breaking point. It’s inevitable that at some point, this is all going to collapse.

“Temporarily closes” may have been a better headline.

I thought it meant they were shutting for good, which would be pretty ridiculous.

Personally, I don’t feel that analogy is a fair comparison.

Begging a dev for new features for free would definitely be entitlement, because it’s demanding more, but what OP is upset about is reduction in the service they already had.

I don’t think any free tier user of any service could have any right to be upset if new features were added only for paying customers, but changing the free tier level is different.

In my opinion, even if you aren’t paying for it, the free tier is a service level like any other. People make decisions about whether or not to use a service based on if the free tier covers their needs or not. Companies will absolutely try to upsell you to a higher tier and that’s cool, that’s business after all, but they shouldn’t mess around with what they already offered you.

When companies offer a really great free tier but then suddenly reduce what is on it, then in my opinion that’s a baiting strategy. They used a compelling offering to intentionally draw in a huge userbase (from which they benefit) and build up the popularity and market share of the service, and then chopped it to force users - who at this point may be embedded and find it difficult to switch - to pay.

So yeah, it doesn’t matter in my opinion that the tier is free. It’s still a change in what you were promised after the fact, and that’s not cool regardless of whether there is money involved or not.

If you take a peek at world history there are certainly some reasons for that correlation, and it’s not a pretty story.

Yeah. The whole “gig economy” model is based on companies being able to shrug off all the risk. It really needs to die.

It’s ridiculous the current business model has been allowed to exist as long as it has, with these platforms taking all the profit while passing off all the risk and liability.

As a customer, when you buy something from Amazon then as far as you are concerned your relationship is with Amazon, not with ‘cooltechshop99’ or whatever the vendor may be.

Elephants have an image in popular culture as being ‘gentle giants’ - and the companies who can benefit from that image by offering elephant petting, bathing and other experiences have no reason to suggest it’s anything other than perfectly safe.

This is great, honestly.

If you go back to antiquity, education was about philosophy. It was about learning how to observe, and think critically, and see the world for what it is.

And then in modern times, education became about memorisation - learning facts and figures and how to do this and that. And that way of teaching and learning just doesn’t fit any longer with what our digital age has become.

In my opinion, we are heavily overdue for a revamp of what education should be, and what skills are most important to society in this post-truth world. Critical thinking is an important foundation to real knowledge that we don’t teach enough.

Right, and what I’m saying is there’s basically zero incentive for corporations to ever take action, because SAYING you will be doing it has all the image, PR and revenue benefits, but without needing to even ACTUALLY do it. And then later you just quietly forget about it, like this.

The only way companies will ever take action is if governments legally mandate them to (and even then maybe not!)

Yep. Any promised future targets are just marketing hype.

Then: “Eco-friendly is really trending now, we’ll base our image around that”

Now: “It’s more profitable to drop the eco targets, so were dropping them”