Sparking

My advice: only forward ports 8080 and 443, then make sure that you have fail2ban or crossed properly set up on your reverse proxy. After that, you are pretty much fine as long as you keep on top of updating your containers.

I would be careful about which apps you proxy. Idk why you need to access the admin portal for pi hole worldwide. If you really want to do that, you should set up a vpn.

It will be interesting to watch the suit unfold. David is claiming that Valve de-facto forces the pricing through the threat of de-listing on steam. So he will need to prove it. We don’t see many games sell below steam price, but I do think that there is kind of an incentive for devs to have one consistent price across all retailers. At the end of the day, there is a price customers are willing to pay for a given game, and you don’t want to lower it on the platform that give you a higher cut of revenue. It’s why it would kind of be silly for Valve to engage in this price fixing behavior, but there are plenty of instances where for-profit companies and employees do silly (and illegal) things, so we will see as this case plays out.

The only way steam falls off is if another store beats them on volume, which also means provides a better customer experience than steam. It’s a really tall order - how do you get people to move to your game libary management sytem? The only real way is to have an exclusive game that players can’t get on steam. That is the core of EGS - the place where you play fortnite. EGS actually makes a lot of sense as long as epic making the hottest game on earth. Half Life 2 was essentially why Valve was able to launch Steam. The issue is that Fortnite is on the decline and EGS just loses money. I don’t know how you make enough money to outdo Valve in the near term.

I have no idea. We will see in court right?

What devs would like to do is push gamers to buy their games on platforms where they get a higher revenue cut. The logic is that 15 dollar game could be 12 dollars on GoG and a dev makes the same amount of money. The issue with this approach is the game theory doesn’t work out for the customer - if a customer is willing to buy a game on steam for more money, than the dev has no reason to offer it on another store for less money when they actually have a higher cut of the revenue, and a higher incentive to price higher. There are non-price reasons a customer would like to buy on steam. Cloud syncing, integrity verification, easy steam deck client, and most importantly parity with the rest of their library. So it is very favorable to Valve as long as its the preferred place to buy games.

The issue is that while it is fair for steam to compete on service, it definitely is unfair for them to try to dictate to devs and publishers where they can sell their games and how they price them, especially if it isn’t a part of their ToS. You don’t get a steam key from GoG, and you aren’t using Steam’s servers. If Devs get more of the revenue, AND they were theoretically able to achieve more volume on GoG, why would you ever sell your game on steam and give up more revenue? Steam has to compete - which they claim they do, and David is alleging they don’t in their suit.

The suit isn’t about key reselling.

Right. Valve is claiming they didn’t, and that they only demand price parity for steam keys. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Honestly, I am not sure what game valve would play to do this. Devs could just make a red and green version of their game to sell on different platforms and price them differently. Meanwhile, to customers, a games price is a games price and developer publisher and distributor are always incentivized to find the highest price a customer is willing to pay through game theory. The market has definitely proven that customers don’t care about what percentage of the cut goes to devs. So there is no incentive for anyone to post a game at a lower price than what a customer is wiling to pay on steam as long as steam retains the highest volume. Telling devs to not price the way they want seems very counter productive to being a good retailer, so who knows.

You have to remember that allot of these sales are from key retailers that will do stuff like buy keys wholesale. I’m not completely sure how that market works honestly, but that generates a lot of sales.

The case is really going to depend on David proving that Valve engaged in the alleged behavior. Games go on sale all the time, so there is a difference between a game being temporarily cheaper on one site because of a sale or key resell market demand, and valve using their influence to fix prices.

In his blog, David claimed that steam reps were threatening to pull his game if he listed lower on other stores.

It doesn’t matter. The suit is alleging that valve threatened to ban games if they were cheaper on other stores. Thats monopolistic price manipulation, and it’s illegal. Valve even pro.ises not to do this in its terms of service - their price parity policy is only supposed to apply to steam keys. That would be fair, because otherwise they couldn’t give out keys in the first place. But you can’t force devs to list games at the same price and then decide on the cut you will take if you are a monopoly. They will have to prove Valve violated its ToS.

This is why I steal everything. Jk

Yeah yeah, I do think even like windows 11 these days. I’m a debian with KDE guy.

16 gb optiplexes on sale for 85 dollars on eBay. Dont come with windows, but neither do macs :P

Apple probably just lets it happen.

I mean yeah. Idk why people pre-ordered it, but they did, that’s their whole funding. Now they owe a copy to all their “backers”, and it’s hard to see how releasing this game will bring in revenue. They are in a very big hole.

Thats part of it because everyone interested already doesn’t like them and is getting this game for free. If it doesn’t have legs outside of everyone who has effectively ore-ordered, its going to be a real issue for CIG

It's a question of trust. Google will select the certificates they trust for the services they provide, and the entities that own those certificates will decide what do to with them. If they trust a certificate from Mozilla, and Mozilla agrees to make that certificate open to everyone for instance, than Google's only choice is to stop trusting it. But if Mozilla decides that is the certificate Firefox will use, than Google has to choose kicking off Firefox as well as other third party apps. Same with Microsoft and Apple, but I think Mozilla is more likely to oppose this kind of standard rather than try to reach some kind of agreement with Google.

The other way that this could play out every browser dev makes some kind of arrangement. Very unstable when we are talking about competitors.

At the end of the day, it requires a level of co-operation with the browser developers and internet service providers that I don't think a lot of people will go for, for various reasons. Especially not regulators. I guess I am just more optimistic about the open internet.

O use, and self hosted synching for joplin.

I have also looked into logseq which has some of the additional features that people like, but the app was too slow and ubstabled.

Well yeah. But those clients could ultimately just say they are firefox if Mozilla is open enough, which they tend to be. It ends when Google decides that stuff like YouTube should only work on chrome. That would be bad, and I think regulators would treat it as bad, especially the EU.

Just to be clear, I don't think forcing this standard down everyone's throats for naked commercial reasons is a good idea either.

It can be very similar to the TLS scheme we use today, where certificates are signed by regulated CA's. The only difference is that currently there is no regulation to ensure that Google will build chrimium to trust other authorities for browser integrity other than itself. That is definitely a major concern. Fortunately, I don't think that it is long term viable. First, Microsoft, Mozilla and Apple would be extremely unhappy with this scheme. That's right off the bat. So there will definitely be resistance on that front because eventually it would do something like break youtube compatibility with Firefox.

Now, I do think that it is plausible that these organizations could come to a agreement that is still ultimately bad for web browsers. There fore, this should be considered by government regulators as something to pay attention to. I'm not too pessimistic about them doing this. There us political will to preserve the open internet, especially in the EU. It looks like the US is also set to re-adopt net neutrality rules. So, im just not as pessimistic about it.

The only issue is that in the short-term, alot of these services that are free are going to degrade. This is what we are seeing with youtube. That is too bad, but I am hopeful and optimistic that it will lead to a more open internet. The fact that we are having this conversation on a decentralized social network is a positive sign.

Perhaps, but eventually there will probably ba a certificate authority alternative to Google. But I agree, we need regulation to determine to ensure that programs calling themselves web browsers will have to adhere to standards, and not be based on features that make certain websites work only on their browser. I think the backlash reaction to implementing "integrity" as a standard was really healthy. But there is still a lot of action to take on the regulatory front.

Are their any downsides to self hosting this stuff?