This is really interesting. I have an idea where this could be helpful to the Plex user community. Recently Plex added a header that blocks the page from being iframed (X-Frame-Options).
Would doing something like this, obviously replacing example.com with their own domain.com, replace the offending header?
addEventListener('fetch', event => {
let request = event.request;
if (request.headers.has('X-Frame-Options')) {
let newHeaders = new Headers(request.headers);
newHeaders.set('X-Frame-Options', 'ALLOW-FROM https://example.com/');
event.respondWith(fetch(request, {headers: newHeaders}));
}
// Use default behavior.
return;
});
Of course, you could only apply it to your own server.
Also, you would want to think carefully about clickjacking attacks (where someone puts your site in an invisible iframe and tricks people into clicking on it). The X-Frame-Options header was probably added to prevent clickjacking.
Of course this would be the user's personally hosted server. Typically hidden behind a password and loaded in some sort of HTPC manager like Organizr.
According to reports, Plex' intention was to prevent clickjacking, which is perfectly reasonable but left many of their users from being able to use their Plex servers within the HTPC managers.
Is that specified somewhere? I mean, I see this in the EULA `READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE COMPLETING THE INSTALLATION PROCESS AND USING OFFICIAL CADDY BINARIES AND RELATED SOFTWARE COMPONENTS ("Software").` But is there something that specifically says the EULA only applies to official binaries and not the source code or self compiled binaries?
commercial sites have the easy ability to go to https://github.com/mholt/caddy; download the source; remove the header from header.go and server.go; compile; run
i'd venture to guess many build the binary themselves already. so they can add their own tweaks.
how would anyone be able to prove a website is being ran by caddy if the server doesn't announce that it is caddy?
> Once configured, don't plan on using the computer you setup the Media server on as it is always busy/ bogged down scanning files and transcoding video.
This part is incorrect. Plex only needs to transcode at the time the media is being played and really only scans when changes to the media directory are detected and/or on a schedule you define.
That domain's not available, unfortunately. trump.care wasn't available either. I figured Ryancare was the best name to go with -- the bill has already been branded as that name in some circles.
Even if some were questionable, it doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. Unlike the real 'fake news' outlets, where truth is intentionally skewed, hidden or muddied, with the intent of attracting the most eyeballs.
As is getting into arguments about fake news and continuing the meme. Figuring out how to work from a common set of facts is important, but this meme distracts from other important issues.
Fake news sites often have no "facts" at all. That's why people don't bother fact checking them. At worst, they'll crop up when somebody uses fake news for political purposes, example being Trump's racist birther lies, or his lies about crime rates.
Today's problem is that Trump is using the #fakenews label to attack reputable sources that call him out on his lies. This is an attempt to establish a false equivalence, and it's the core issue. It's extremely damaging to American democracy.
As many reputable news organizations (including the BBC) have pointed out, Trump is taking the same approach as Hitler, Mao and other dictators, and going directly against the line that previous US presidents have taken (at least, in public).
I understand where you're coming from. Take a step back. When you argue about this, who is your audience? What do you want to accomplish? Are you trying to mobilize people who already agree with you? Reach people on the fence? Convince those who disagree? How does your message sound to your intended audience?
Who you're trying to reach is up to you. I believe that using the term "fake news" is very unhelpful. At this point it's effectively without definition except as a perjorative dismissal, so you'll nearly always be discussing something with a different meaning for each party unless care is taken to define it upfront. If you're anti-Trump, you're continuing a meme used effectively by Trump himself. This meme is being used to further polarize, every side pointing to the others as being at fault.
Edit to add: Please don't misinterpret this to mean I don't think critical reading of news and calling out misrepresentation of facts or outright lies is important. This is very important. Doing so under the banner of fake news distracts so much from this effort that it works against it.
> I believe that using the term "fake news" is very unhelpful.
True, but it's the term Donald Trump uses to try to discredit sources that are not fake news. This is a matter of fact.
> At this point it's effectively without definition except as a perjorative dismissal
No. Fake news is completely made up news that is designed to look like real news in order to deceive readers, usually for profit. Examples: Trump was born in Pakistan, Pizzagate, George Soros paid protesters etc.
Look at how people are using the term, including Trump. Look at the discussions here on HN. Memes like "fake news" have the meaning as they are used, regardless of a strict definition you'd like to keep it to. If you think you can convince everyone to use your definition and only your definition, best of luck to you, though I think that battle is already lost. If you're content knowing that you're using the correct definition and others are wrong, I fear you're not going to be effective in getting your message across.
I fear I'm in a similar situation with respect to this argument; at least in terms of my presentation, so I'll leave it at that. My sincere best wishes.
Well, I pointed out the factual uses. I'm not responsible for other people misusing the term (as Trump does) or failing to understand it. I'll leave you with Politifact:
QUOTE:
Fake news is made-up stuff, masterfully manipulated to look like credible journalistic reports that are easily spread online to large audiences willing to believe the fictions and spread the word.
In 2016, the prevalence of political fact abuse – promulgated by the words of two polarizing presidential candidates and their passionate supporters – gave rise to a spreading of fake news with unprecedented impunity.
Fake news: Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.
Fake news: Democrats want to impose Islamic law in Florida.
Fake news: Thousands of people at a Donald Trump rally in Manhattan chanted, "We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back."
None of those stories – and there are so many more like them – is remotely true.
I couldn't read the WSJ article through that link or through a google search.
I read through the NR article, and while the attempts to contact the authors of the fact check was lacking, I don't see the problem in the fact check itself.
ACA was basically saying you can't discriminate against any state licensed and certified health practitioner.
While I think homeopathy is bullshit, I don't see how else to do it, and claiming it gives "elevated legitimacy to alternative medicine" is misleading at best.
It's really far fetched as an attempt to show politifacts questionability.
I'm more inclined by the lack of evidence to the contrary to consider them generally trustworthy.
As a matter of fact, the ACA does legitimize alternative medicine by mandating that state licensure be the standard of legitimacy. Whether that's troubling or not is matter of opinion. As an opinion writer, Kevin Williamson shared his opinion. Politifact then disagreed with him, not on the merits of his premises, but on the argument itself. This would be perfectly acceptable as a rebuttal in the form of an editorial, but instead it was given an air of authority in a "fact check." This is a genre meant to convey to the reader that certain "facts" are beyond debate among serious people. It makes the journalist, or the "fact checker," the arbiter of what conversation can be considered "legitimate." It's so popular because it gives center-left readers the warm feeling of "knowing" that they need not confront and deal with an opposing argument. It can be dismissed as a lie. Ots done under the auspices of cold, disinterested public service, but it's comical to believe that the "fact checkers" are somehow immune from bias in a way other journalists are not. I'm sure a quick Google search for more examples would be fruitful if anyone were interested, but I assume that like all things people have already made up their minds on this.
But the basis for the "fact check" is right there on the site, they aren't hiding anything. State licensure is a reasonable standard. It's otherwise difficult to specify exactly what should and shouldn't be covered. It would also be more federal control. An editorial can claim that it legitimizes something, but clarifying what the ACA actually does (regardless of what you and I think of the effects) and concluding that it is misleading isn't editorializing.
Can't read the first source, but the National Review should never be cited as a legitimate source (the second link). It also reads like an almost raving rant...
I think you've just demonstrated why it's dangerous to have a single official keeper of truth. You're conflating policy judgments with factual correctness, but facts don't necessarily directly lead to policies. We must first judge the facts through our personal lenses of values, and that can lead to different conclusions.
National Review certainly has a political bias, but they're generally pretty good with keeping contact with reality, factually. The fact that they arrive at different conclusions is no reason to try to blacklist them.
It's just "National Review" and it's the preeminent conservative opinion journal. If it's illegitimate, then there can be no legitimate opposition I suppose? Maybe that's your point?
I've seen excellent articles in National Review from time to time. I'm not a regular reader by any means, but a blanket statement like this isn't useful. It leans conservative, but it's also pretty upfront about that fact.
It doesn't just "lean conservative," it is an explicitly conservative opinion journal, and an excellent one. Even if you are not a conservative, it's a great source for understanding conservative thought.
USPS could do a few things to improve and they really aren't that big. For the following examples consider this: I live on a "no outlet" road. Meaning 100% of traffic is for the 20 houses on the street and not through traffic. And of the local traffic it is extremely minimal, we have more kids playing on the street than we have cars.
1) Stop being lazy. For example, I ordered something from Amazon and even though I have Prime, I paid for next day delivery. It was something I really needed. I rushed home that day excited to finish a project. Looking out the window I watched the USPS guy drive right past my house. A short while later I got a notice from Amazon that my package wasn't delivered due to an obstruction blocking my mailbox. I go out to the mailbox and look around trying to figure out what the obstruction was. The only thing I could figure out that would be possibly considered an obstruction was the trash cans I had just taken out that were about 5 feet to the left of the mailbox.
2) Consider somethings could possibly be fragile and take that into account when handling. For example, earlier this week I had 2 "large" flat envelopes delivered that were clearly way too large for my mailbox. Instead of considering that the contents may be fragile the USPS guy just jammed the envelopes into the mailbox the best he could making them into a crumpled mess.
It's not about laziness. Fedex and UP ruthlessly measures the efficiency of their drivers by timing their every single activity. This information is displayed in real-time to managers back at the warehouse, who can see, for instance, if a particular delivery is taking longer than average.
This is why many drivers game the system by skipping deliveries that they think will take too long, or (for packages that require signature) wait for only ~5 seconds after knocking on the door before deciding that you must not be home.
Wouldn't that then imply that you would get worse service from Fedex and UPS, where the drivers have more to gain by cutting corners? But the reality is really the exact opposite.
It's highly dependent on where you live and the individual driver assigned to your route.
I used to absolutely wonder in confusion why people complained about the USPS - where I grew up it was always cheaper and generally more reliable than UPS or Fedex. Plus if you ever had to go into the Post Office the people were downright pleasant and competent.
Then I moved to Chicago, and I instantly realized the reputation was deserved. It was essentially two entirely different postal systems, you would simply not recognize them as the same "company".
UPS and Fedex I've both had utterly fail for me living in different locations, just lazy worthless drivers happened to be assigned to me.
I will say all the complaining about "leaving packages to get stolen" needs to stop - if you're concerned get a box to put them in. Otherwise it's not reasonable to have these guys wait on you to come to to door. Sure it's only 30 seconds, but that's 30 seconds multiplied by 200 each day. Sure there will be some shrink just like a retail store, but it's still overall much more efficient.
> Otherwise it's not reasonable to have these guys wait on you to come to to door. Sure it's only 30 seconds, but that's 30 seconds multiplied by 200 each day
The only place I've had packages left outside is in the US. In every other country, every package that doesn't fit in the mailbox requires you to come to the door (or in many cases, it will require you to pick it up at a local postal pickup point, usually a nearby supermarket/convenience store/gas station)
My USPS drivers are so shiftless I have no reason to believe they would put packages in a box if I had one. They have left boxes on the driveway in the rain even though there is a covered porch a few feet away. I routinely get my neighbors' mail. USPS is so bad that I do everything I can to not receive mail.
I don't know what the criterion is for not leaving a package, but it typically seems that UPS or FedEx will leave a package whereas USPS will not. Even for trivial, cheap packages like a roll of posters, USPS will leave a dreaded pink slip requiring me to visit the post office. While I have had that happen with UPS, those incidents are few and far in between. For me leaving the package is often the difference between getting it or not.
I will say, I usually work from home if I'm expecting something important and that UPS often does not seem to knock or if they do they've hired the world's quietest knockers. Perhaps they think I'm not home since I have a concealed driveway and just don't bother, but it definitely seems their high expectations do have some drawbacks.
If UPS does not meet it's promise, sometimes the paying customer is reimbursed ( first hand experience with Farnell delivering to me, while speaking with UPS service personnel ).
Call your local USPS office tell them you are going to file a formal complaint/grievance to Amazon about the delivery. The driver can get reprimanded for it. Amazon Prime deliveries are not a joke to them.
Source: both my parents just retired from the USPS.
Your #1 is my main complaint. I live at the end of a long gravel driveway which is admittedly not always in the best of shape, especially in the winter. UPS (and other non-USPS) carriers still have no choice but to come down the driveway. USPS will often do things like hang boxes of the mailbox (where they've been stolen from time to time) or jam them into the mailbox. (The situation has gotten somewhat better since I got a huge mailbox that can accommodate most packages.)
My limited experiences with the USPS have been quite positive. The two times I've called to inquire about packages they routed first to the manager and then to the actual postman who delivers my mail. He remembered details about my building's entrance like the location of a small basket, and explained where the mail in question had been left.
I ordered an item from Amazon and was initially happy that it was being sent USPS. I live in an apartment building without a doorman. UPS and FedEx can't get inside the building but USPS has a key in order to get into the lobby with the mailboxes. But somehow the package delivery arm of the USPS is different from the ordinary mail delivery arm and I got a notification that they couldn't deliver the package.
Something like having agreements with all the landlords to get keys to all the buildings is a major advantage that the USPS has over its rivals. It should take advantage of that.
Huh I get next-day included on every Prime purchase I make and always have done. If I order something at 11pm at night it's usually at my door by around 10am the next day. That's on standard Prime, and I don't live in a major metropolitan area.
Prime would be a pretty poor deal if I had to wait two days for anything to turn up!
* FREE Two-Day Shipping on eligible items to addresses in the contiguous U.S. and other shipping benefits. For more information, go to Amazon Prime Shipping Benefits.
* FREE Same-Day Delivery in eligible zip codes. For more information, go to Order with Prime FREE Same-Day Delivery.
I still think two-day delivery is pretty rubbish. The great thing about Amazon Prime is it's faster than finding time to go to the shops and pick it up. If I have to wait literally days for it to arrive it's not the case any more.
Yeah this is all attributable to the relative size/shipping distances involved in the UK vs. the US.
1-day shipping in the U.S. outside of major metro areas is basically impossible at that $100 price point (or whatever Prime is these days). 2 days is pretty remarkable when you really think about it.
Weird, i've never seen that. Wonder if it is due to your proximity to a Amazon center or something.
Fwiw, i (not OP) still feel 2 day is plenty fast and i get my moneys worth. Ordering 2 day on non-Prime items reminds me how expensive that crap is normally.
everytime.