Fail2ban config can get fairly involved in my experience. I’m probably not doing it the right way, as I wrote a bunch of web server ban rules — anyone trying to access wpadmin gets banned, for instance (I don’t use WordPress, and if I did, it wouldn’t be accessible from my public facing reverse proxy).

I just skimmed my nginx logs and looked for anything funky and put that in a ban rule, basically.

Ah, good point!

Dell XPS 13 Snapdragon seems like it’s trying to compete with the Air.

man rot13 ;)

I’m not mad at the huge amount I pay in taxes. I’m mad about what I get in return.

I would bet that if you remux BBB to an mkv and play that through JF, it won’t transcode — I think it will just remux it back to mp4. Just a guess…

Interesting — I wonder if it only displays the first reason for having to mess with the stream, e.g., if it’s really that it’s an unsupported container, video, and audio codec.

Possible to try playing an h264 mkv (maybe Big Buck Bunny)? Since your screenshot is h265 I wonder if it indeed needs to transcode because that’s unsupported (in addition to mkv).

unless everyone is using hardware acceleration

I think that’s what (almost) everyone does. My little N100 works just fine with QSV.

Is it definitely transcoding? JF can remix without transcoding iirc.

And over twice the GDP.

“Wow you signed the document in blood, you must be really hardcore.”

“No I’m just cheap.”

That’s…pretty believable.

The amount of money you save (and invest) isn’t accurately depicted with this though. Living expenses don’t necessarily grow with take home, if you keep lifestyle creep to a minimum.

So what this means is that if you make $100k and save $10k/year, if you start making $200k you can save the same $10k/year, plus the entire additional $100k after taxes (let’s just say that’s $50k+). So you doubled your salary but your savings went up 6x+.

But “included” doesn’t mean free. You still paid for it.

If you don’t want to sail the high seas, and you don’t want to pay, the library is a great, free option.

Take numbers with a grain of salt, e.g., this link says a 7200RPM 160GB SATA drive from 2004 is $107, or about $0.67/GB, instead of the $5 claimed in post.

Yeah, but this is (according to OP) faster, which saves money. And, because it’s open, if there are features that could add serious value, they could be added in-house.

But yeah, perhaps a bit of a pyrrhic victory.