[-] Ooops@feddit.org 2 points 9 minutes ago* (last edited 5 minutes ago)

Always impressive how they manage to let idiots parrot every long disproven "argument" completely unquestioned. Peak journalism as usual. As if there weren't enough studies showing that removing parking spots for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure actuall increases walk-in customers and revenue for all shops nearby.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 1 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago)

Das ist meines Wissens nach aber eine unnötige vereinfachte Darstellung. Statt "lohnt sich der Bau auch bei weniger Wind und damit Energieerzeugung?" müsste es eigentlich heißen "Lohnt sich der Bau von etwas höheren (und damit etwas teureren) Windrädern, um ordentliche Ausbeute zu erreichen?".

Die grundsätzliche Antwort bleibt die selbe, aber ohne es direkt gegen Transportkosten und Subventionen (und ob diese von Dauer sind) gegenrechnen zu müssen. Warum den Gegnern noch Argumente über Standortegüte von nur 50% an die Hand geben, wenn "es kosten in dem Gebiet ein schlicht paar % mehr, um gute Verhältnisse zu haben" auch funktioniert, weil es nur ein paar Meter höher völlig anders aussieht (so ist das halt im Gebirge...)?

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Neue Rechenzentren sollen massig Energie verschlingen.

Das ist aber mitnichten das Problem.

Das falsche Propagandanarrarativ, dass Energieproduktion nur gelingen kann, wenn wir dafür den Planet abfackeln, samt der üblichen rechten "Umweltauflagen und Nachhaltigkeit gefährden die Wirtschaft"-Märchen sind das tatsächliche Problem.

Ist der Energiebedarf gerechtfertigt? Brauchen wir die Rechenzentren wirklich? Ergibt es Sinn Umweltvorschriften in Frage zu stellen?

Das wären die Fragen, die tatsächlicher Journalismus stellen sollte.

Aber da der schon lange tot ist, kriegen wir stattdessen solche Scheißtitel, die falsche Narrative ("Umweltschutz steht Energieverbrauch und letztendlich auch Industrie entgegen!") unhinterfragt übernehmen. Und da wundert man sich dann (nein, tut man eigentlich nicht, dass ist genauso beabsichtigt...), dass Leute Umweltschutz in Frage stellen oder gegen andere Faktoren abwägen, die in der Realität vereinbar wären.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

...with "regular users" being an euphemism for bots and trolls.

17
submitted 6 hours ago by Ooops@feddit.org to c/unixporn@lemmy.world

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 16 points 6 hours ago

Korruption und Transparenz sind halt nicht kompatibel...

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago

irrelevant metaphysical distinction...

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 4 points 7 hours ago

The point here is that SystemD's natural behavior is to send SIGTERM then wait an eternity.

Those "service XY is shutting down (5sec/2min)" messages you sometimes get on shutdown are coming from SystemD not waiting for 3 seconds like the meme suggests, but waiting for minutes before giving up and switching over to SIGKILL instead.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Isn't that the point here? Mode of transportation doesn't matter. People seem to quite universally set the same limits and it's based on time needed. Better, faster or more efficient modes of transportation simply change the distance people consider for jobs.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Gibt es auch die deutsche Edition "Die unfassbare Macht jeglicher Industrie- und Wirtschaftslobby"?

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago

It's only baffling if you pretend that they are not actively trying to inconvenience cyclists with bad infrastructure.

In my city (in Germany) I have to do these kind of maneuvers every few meters as streetlights and even some signs and trees are intentionally put close to the center line of bike lanes barely 1 meter wide.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 45 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

analysts believe SpaceX is “significantly overvalued”

So a perfectly normal US tech company, operating in a stock market that totally decoupled from economic reality quite some time ago.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 27 points 2 days ago

only to cave to Microsoft soon after?

"Cave" is the wrong verb here. They were outright bribed by Microsoft building their new headquarter in Munich, so they rolled the ongoing transition to Linux back.

26
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Ooops@feddit.org to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

As this will -thanks to me being quite clueless- be a very open question I will start with the setup:

One nginx server on an old Raspi getting ports 80 and 443 routed from the access point and serving several pages as well as some reverse proxies for other sevices.

So a (very simplified) nginx server-block that looks like this:

# serve stuff internally (without a hostname) via http
server {
	listen 80 default_server;
	http2 on;
	server_name _; 
	location / {
		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
                \# that's where all actual stuff is located
	}
}
# reroute http traffic with hostname to https
server {
	listen 80;
	http2 on;
	server_name server_a.bla;
	location / {
		return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
	}
}
server {
	listen 443 ssl default_server;
	http2 on;
	server_name server_a.bla;
   	ssl_certificate     A_fullchain.pem;
    	ssl_certificate_key A_privkey.pem;
	location / {
		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
	}
}
#actual content here...
server {
	listen 5555;
	http2 on;
    	root /srv/http;
	location / {
        	index index.html;
   	} 
    	location = /page1 {
		return 301 page1.html;
	}
    	location = /page2 {
		return 301 page2.html;
	}
        #reverse proxy for an example webdav server 
	location /dav/ {
		proxy_pass        http://localhost:6666/;
	}
}

Which works well.

And intuitively it looked like putting Anubis into the chain should be simple. Just point the proxy_pass (and the required headers) in the "port 443"-section to Anubis and set it to pass along to localhost:5555 again.

Which really worked just as expected... but only for server_a.bla, server_a.bla/page1 or server_a.bla/page2.

server_a.bla/dav just hangs and hangs, to then time out, seemingly trying to open server_a.bla:6666/dav.

So long story short...

How does proxy_pass actually work that the first setup works, yet the second breaks? How does a call for localhost:6666 (already behind earlier proxy passes in both cases) somehow end up querying the hostname instead?

And what do I need to configure -or what information/header do I need to pass on- to keep the internal communication intact?

view more: next ›

Ooops

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago