Did you mean to send that reply to me?
I ask because I'm not quite sure what specific suggestions you're looking for.
But in general, I would suggest not exposing port forwarding.
What services are running behind NGINX? What router/firewall are you using?
They are frequently targeted because they offer enterprise grade configurations at consumer prices.
Which means, there's a lot that can be misconfigured, and a lot of short staffed and under budgeted IT departments that deploy them, which means they are a good payoff when exploited.
That's the bad part, and the good part.
You really cannot beat their price point to value for professional grade networking equipment. Just take the time to understand what you're doing when doing your configurations, and keep them updated.
Can't say I've met the elusive DeSantis/Green voter.
It's almost like Newsweek is a rag publication and anyone who actually believes Greens pull from Trump, well, they read Newsweek.
Absolutely. Especially software that has to interface with specific hardware, which often times can have issues working properly with Windows VMs.
I can just dedicate some old hardware for baremetal Win10, but not everyone has that luxury.
If they were laying siege to a military base, sure.
But they were laying siege to a city.... Maybe you should go read up on the history of siege warfare to get a better understanding of how that impacts civilian populations. Heck, forget medieval times, just look back to the '90s to the Siege of Sarajevo.
Also, prior to this 20th century, there were no Geneva Conventions, and prior to Nuremberg, no international war crime tribunals. So not sure what your point is.
Either way, it's a cartoon world. My entire point was that cartoons shouldn't be held to a standard that must reflect our reality, but that logic must applied equally. Either it reflects our reality, or it doesn't.
You can't say it reflects our reality, but because he was a good guy in the end, that negates his war crimes. That's not how war crimes work.
So, if we're discussing this in terms where the cartoon parallels our reality, then yes, laying siege to a city full of civilians is a war crime, full stop.
Are you actually saying that a soldier who participated in the Rape of Nanking, decapitated 30 babies, but who then felt bad and deserted before the end of the war, wouldn't be a war criminal....?
I honestly think the real confusion here is that you have no idea how the Geneva Conventions, ICJ, or just the concept of war crime culpability actually work...
Hint: you're so wrong, that it's actually embarrassing. I'm cringing for you. You should delete your comment before anyone else stumbles across it...
Because I said Nazi SS officer, instead of IJA General..?
I'm sorry, they're both war criminals.... Are you saying that using a different race invalidates the analogy about war criminals...?
It wasn't a bad analogy, it was a disingenuous interpretation by other readers, like you. That or, just really ignorant of the relevant history, such as who the Waffen SS were....
So if people want to play the "what about the good Nazi" game with it, then fine, we can skip straight to the source material and inspiration for the Fire Nation: the Japanese Empire.
But again, I don't believe art has to directly reflect reality. So I don't consider this cartoon to be a war criminal, but if people insist interpreting it as a direct reflection of reality, then yes, an IJA General would be his historical analog.
The inspiration for the Fire Nation was Imperial Japan...
That means his historical analog was an IJA General tasked with conquering China, Korea, Philippines, etc.
Why don't you open history book, and find me the IJA General on one of those campaigns who wasn't a war criminal.
That's why humans have brains, for situational awareness.
And it's less about not breaking for an animal, as it is about not wildly swerving.
Also, you should probably revise your thinking on this before you visit any states that have large animals like Moose on the roads. Because if you plow into one with a car, it can easily kill you when it crushes you after impact.
They will, but only because he'll die trying to make toast while taking a bath, or something else actually Darwin Award worthy.
Holy shit.
After reading both of your comments, I am left feeling dumber by at least 12%.
Quick, write about four more of them and I should be good and ready to find my way to a Darwin Award.
U know what i think ...
The better question is do I care what you think, and the answer is no, not at all.
But if you insist, I'm sure whatever you're thinking shouldn't be too hard to figure out, as there can't be too many possibilities. What I'm saying is, you give strong vibes of a likely future Darwin Award nominee.
It feels like none of you have actually read the Darwin Awards website that actually you know, coined the phrase.
Simply working a dangerous environment and dying within it, doesn't make it a Darwin Award, not even a nominee.
She was there to do a job that required a lot of attention on it's own. You can't be assigned to photograph skydivers, at an airfield, without having to expend some energy and attention to doing that job.
By your logic, any of the kids who got ground up and killed cleaning meat processing plants, should have been more aware. Guess they're also Darwin Award winners, at least by your metrics.
Darwin Awards are for deaths that are so stupendously stupid and insane, that the removal of their genes from the gene pool acts as a kind of cleanse.
Such as the guy who stuck a plunger in the shower as a makeshift dildo, held on to the shower curtain rod area for support, which proceeded to break under his weight and impaled him.
That's an actual Darwin Award. Not this poor lady.
That's not what Darwin awards are for.
Ironically, the fact that you think it is, means if you have an untimely death, there's a good chance it will be eligible.
No asshole, read the article before making such callous comments.
She was there, on assignment for work. Small airfields are very dangerous, and this type of accident can happen to anyone who isn't fully focused on their surroundings. Such as a photographer who is taking photographs as part of their job, steps in the wrong direction.
Which is why this is fictional, and he's allowed to have a narrative story arc.
However, if this was a Nazi SS Officer, who fled to South America, and then went on to redeem himself by [insert narratively compelling redemption story], he'd still be a war criminal.
But again, it's a cartoon, and we don't have to treat his character as if he were an actual Imperial General commanding troops during wars of conquest, especially one from the IJA.
If I was support, had a list to work through because my calls were monitored and recorded, and you were being a complete know-it-all asshole, I would walk through them as slow as possible, and repeat as many as I could plausibly get away with.
Because that's the actual job: following instructions from their boss, which means following their processes. Why would they deviate from that, and risk their job, for someone who's rude, and/or self-important?
As someone who's also technically competent and rarely calls support, when I do, I've never had to repeat the same steps 17 times, or even 3 times.
I let them tell me to turn off and on again, confirm it's done, explain why I need a level 2 support or escalation. Then they'll typically ask me one or two more questions, which I'll politely answer, reiterate my polite request for level 2, and they will escalate for me.