Exactly this. You can configure nginx/apache this way, that specific pages, like an admin interface, are only reachable from a specific IP range. If it comes from another one, you can return whatever you want.

Aah, that’s very smart. Thanks for explaining!

The main purpose is to lock admin pages to a fix IP to increase security.

What does that mean? Do you mean that you do this to have a static IP pointing to an admin page? Why does that increase security? Please forgive my ignorance 😅

At least, you run your entire Internet traffic over it. And with these prices, you can almost lease a small VPS, install OpenVPN and browse through it.

I spun an OpenVPN server today using the Nyr OpenVPN install script and it took less than 5 minutes. It is very easy to do! Now I am trying to decide whether it is worth keeping it.

Given that most of my traffic goes through HTTPS, unencrypted traffic is not much of an issue. What they can do is keep a list of all of the websites a person has visited. VPN providers promise not to do this, but it is likely that they do.

So, what I am gathering is:

A VPN provider gives you more flexibility with geofencing and a faster network speed, but there is a chance that they are logging the websites that you visit. They are less likely to get you in trouble if you torrent because to forward an abuse claim they would need to admit that they log activity, and they will try to avoid that.

A VPS provider is unlikely to log your traffic because this information is less valuable to them. A VPS is more expensive than a VPN provider, but it is possible to use the server for other purposes, and it is possible to delete it when not in use. A VPS is not suitable for illegal network activity because the abuse reports get routed to you.

I do find it convenient to have the ability to change my location quickly, but I am willing to give up on some of this flexibility. I am trying to understand the tradeoffs.

I am talking about torrenting because I figured it was one of the main use-cases. But I don’t personally torrent, I use the VPN as a general privacy strategy. Thinking about this, I think that I have framed this question the wrong way by giving an illegal usecase. So I am interested in the logic for legal use.

If I am not breaking the law, then one purpose of the VPN is to keep my activity private. If I connect through an ISP, my ISP has my personal information and can log my activity. If I connect through a VPN provider, the VPN provider has my personal information and they can associate it with my activity. If I use my own VPN, then my VPS provider can in theory log my activity by monitoring the connections that my server makes. But it is less likely that the VPS provider would invest the effort in logging this type of information because different servers are pinging the web all the time for many different reasons, so it is of no value to them to try to gather this type data.

So I am now thinking about it along the following lines:

The VPS is better for privacy because even though they can see their servers communicating with other networks, and they know that you own the server, they don’t have enough information to determine why those connections are being made (is it a website? a vpn? a web crawler? or some other junk…), so collecting this data is worthless to them.

On the other hand, the network that goes through a VPN provider’s server knows that it is you using the server to browse the web, so this is a well-defined a valuable dataset, and the value of this data incentives them to collect it.

It makes sense. I am asking because I ran into a few videos (such as this one) advocating self-hosting of VPNs, but I am thinking that it is not such a good idea.

I just watched this video by Linus Tech Tips on the topic and I think that he gives a good explanation.

It appears that there are some specific cases in which having a VPN server is useful, but these cases are different than the cases for which a VPN provider is useful. Do you think that it fair to say that if one wants a ‘DIY’ solution it is better to stick with TOR and/or P2P?

Do you think that the US is quietly building a strong criminal case against him, keeping it quiet to try not to spook him? Or are they really going to get away with this? No way…

If we consider your randomness argument, the situation is actually worse, not better. If certain patients are more susceptible, risk becomes worse than 1/5000 for general population

No, you are misunderstanding what I mean. What I mean the following:

We accept: There have been 1/5000 serious injuries per shot, meaning the following: “If we have given the shot to 5,000,000 then observed 1,000 serious adverse effect”.

In the extreme susceptibility scenario, those 1,000 people had a special trait that caused them to have that adverse effect, and the other 4,999,9000 people are immune.

If we give those remaining people another shot, then their probability of getting a secondary effect is 0%, because they are immune.

What is observed then is that there are 1/5000 cases of reported adverse effects regardless of number of vaccination.

A difference in susceptibility will decrease the odds during subsequent vaccination, assuming that those who reported an adverse effect are less likely to take the next shot. The way to increase the odds would be due to cumulative effects. In your analysis you assumed the scenario that is neither a cumulative effect nor are there differences in susceptibility.

Correct response would be to not take chances, give baby unVaxd blood from parents. What does hospital lose ? Nothing, except propaganda that Vax is ‘safe, free and effective’ - 100% lies

Yes. An excellent hospital should go above and beyond to do what they can to make the patients feel safe. Let’s accept that the hospital and government says are in the wrong, and they are not going to accomodate them. Substantially increasing the probability of their child dying by delaying this operation is not the correct response. If they think that the chance is 1/1000, OK, take the 1/1000 chance now and continue your battle later.

I am curious about your analysis. I can’t dive deep into it today, but I’ve saved this post as favorite to come back soon :)

Only considering what you wrote here - I can see that you are making several assumptions that go in your favor. For example - the statement that there is ~1/1000 chance for a 2x Vax 2x boosted assumes that adverse effects are completely random - the other extreme would be that some people are ‘perfectly’ susceptible to the adverse effects and other people are ‘perfectly’ immune, so the ratio of 1/5000 would remain constant over subsequent vaccinations. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

But let’s see… If the risk scales in the manner that you have stated, then that implies a stochastic mechanism that is activated during the early phases after receiving the vaccine. Most of the relevant processes involved in such mechanisms would lead to a smaller effect during a blood transfusion, so the risk will be much less than 1/5000. I have not yet looked at your analysis but I am very skeptical of this number. But let’s say then that it is 1/1000. Then, yes, I agree, it is an unacceptable degree of risk and it is worth fighting - but it is still riskier to delay the operation, and the parents should allow the transfusion to proceed and continue their fight later. I am all in favor of self-sacrifice in the name of progress - martyrs and prisoners are fine, but don’t sacrifice others.

From what I can quickly find (1,2) the estimates are less than 1 thrombotic event for every 130,000 vaccinated people. One of the known mechanisms is due to the formation of antibodies that can attack a platelet factor and induce clotting. The details are not entirely known, and the specifics of the mechanism would determine whether the risk increases or decreases from a blood transfusion. I can think of both possibilities.

We don’t know exactly, but we do know that the probability is low because blood transfusions are very very common and these events are rare.

There are two options:

(1) The parents are doing this because they truly believe that the risk of their child receiving vaccinated blood is greater than the risk of delaying this operation. This is objectively false. The anti-vaccine narrative has severely distorted their perception of the risks.

OR

(2) They are doing resisting on ideological grounds. They are willing to risk their child’s life if it means staying true to their values. This is a radical position and I am sorry for that child.

I am sorry, but I am 100% with the parents on this one. Why couldn’t they allow the parents to donate their blood directly ? The ‘experts’ cited say that it was to prevent “100 others from asking for the same”. They are doubling down on Vax propaganda

Everyone involved should do their best effort to save this child. I believe that it is better to give in to the parent’s request rather than to delay the operation even more. If the parents are not compatible, I am sure that there are compatible un-vaxxed people lining up to be donors themselves, so they should just let them do it to save the child, and figure out how to deal with the ‘100 others’ later. HOWEVER, I am absolutely not with the parents with this, because going this route would have taken longer than using the blood that is already available and processed. No one chose to take the high ground here, and the child is the one affected.

Poor child :( I really hope they can save him. What are these parents thinking? As in, what do they believe about the vaccine that would cause a problem during a blood transfusion? Well, clearly that doesn’t matter because they are sentencing their child to death.

Hmmmmm… Maybe I should get a tattoo.

Yeah, I know. That made it extra dumb.

On that note, I did try to pair my devices with my Pfizer microchip, because why not. I do approach those videos with an open mind 😅

One of the reasons why I do not want to get a tattoo.

Censorship sucks. But one day I browsed through the recent videos and it was really bad. Lots of scams and dangerous recommendations. Several videos were claiming that the microchip from the vaccine had a M.A.C. address, and that they would show up via bluetooth.Then they would try to get you to download malware apps to pair with your microchip.

There were videos telling people to drink bleach to curve COVID, claims of all sort of things being in the vaccine like nanobots, carbon nanotubes, secret CRISPR in the vaccine, undeniable proof that COVID was made by combining part of an HIV protein with other proteins to make the spike protein…Lots of junk

which could help people manufacture the drug for scientific study

I have fact-checked this and it checks out

There are not so many controlled studies on microdosing. The ones that exist that I am familiar with (LSD and psilocybin) show no significant improvements vs placebo.

Personally, I am of the opinion that psychedelics exert their positive effects through their psychedelic experiences.

I am open to the idea though. I have taken microdoses many times on days that I stay home. But there are no perceptible effects, so… It just doesn’t do anything.

I have also had a few ‘oh shit, that was not a microdose’ experienceas.

I have only seen this type of shows being talked about on Wolfballs, so I don’t know how pervasive that double standard really is. I have never encountered one of those shows ‘in the wild’ but I am not in the US. If they are common there outside of the extremely trashy TV category I would find that surprising.

Some people might make shows that sexualize children and then try to counter criticism by labeling it as ‘homophobic’ or ‘transphobic’, but I don’t think that it would be fair to then drag the rest of the LGBT community into it - I would bet that most people will agree that those shows are fucked up regardless of where they stand in the LGBT spectrum.

I suspect most people don’t make the groomer <-> LGBT association. I certainly don’t.

I agree that in a particular context it can be used as an anti-LGBT term, but it seems to me like a rather niche use of the word. So to me it comes off as a statement coming from someone with a narrow view and unaware of their sampling bias.