The power aspect is a lot bigger of a factor than I would have thought. I had an old computer I was going to use as a server for Foundry that I could keep up all the time, but when I measured its wattage and did the math, it would cost me $20 a month to keep on. A pi costs like $2 to keep running, so it paid for itself pretty quick

Has science gone too far?

Alternate take: I want something that does B, so I research methods of doing B and find one that’s good. Good thing I’m a smart boy that doesn’t make purchasing decisions based on what the marketing department says things do.

There’s plenty of good reasons to criticize or be concerned about LLMs. You don’t need to make up dumb ones.

Sure, but false advertising has nothing to do with how good an invention is, that’s a marketing problem.

No? I have a pair of shoes that advertise as being great for running and walking. I love walking in them, but they suck for running. Are you saying the shoes suck and I shouldn’t use them at all, even though I like walking in them?

Tools don’t care about intent, and neither should you. Only things that work and things that don’t. And if it doesn’t work, you should use a different tool.

It’s gotten so seamless now, and wine has gotten pretty good. I can download a Windows executable, double click it, go through the regular Windows installer, and then have it make a shortcut on my desktop which will launch it.

Your average user won’t even know all the Dark Magics making it possible, or that they were supposed to have looked around for a Linux alternative, it just works

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think part of why it sucks now is all the Search Engine Optimization, of people trying to game Google into showing you their website, and only necessarily the one most pertinent to your search

I’m always reminded of https://youtu.be/ZI0w_pwZY3E for Skype

I mean, I guess, but that’s only a selling point to the small number of people without smartphones, which isn’t a large enough group to make it a sound business strategy.

Also, the “(after federal incentives)” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The basic option for the 2023 Bolt comes out to about $20K after federal incentives, but you get way more range and a bunch of those “luxury” features this is missing. Considering how cheap low-end smart phones are, I have a hard time imagining that infotainment systems actually add more than 1-2% of the cost of the vehicle. Feels more like a type of virtue signal than a real cost-saving measure.

Relevant xkcd’s

Corporations cannot create nontoxic social media, the incentives will always be there to make it toxic.

I don’t know that’s true. The incentives to make it toxic come from engagement being the goal, which is a function of advertising being the income. I’m not advocating for it, but if there were a flat subscription and no ads, I don’t think they’d have any economic pressures for toxicity.

I would throw out that Windows executables work surprisingly well on Linux these days via “wine.” I use EndeavorOS and it’s pretty much no work on my part, I double-click a .exe and it starts it up via wine. I think the only thing that’s been spotty for me is Meshmixer crashes sometimes, but it’s also abandonware so I’m not sure it actually runs better on Windows.

To me, the potential point of confusion is referring to “sent by Ctrl+D” and things “received by the end process” as synonymous, ignoring the tty driver in between. When you Ctrl+d, you send a magic byte value to the tty master (which I would refer to as a EOF character, but I understand the argument against the terminology). On the other side of it the process doesn’t receive this value, but instead has its read call returned even if the buffer is 0.

A simple example hopefully highlighting the difference

Window1:
nc -nvlp 5555 #"far nc"

Window2:
nc -nv 127.0.0.1 5555 #"local NC"
Hi there[Enter]
Hi [Ctrl+D]There[Ctrl+D][Enter]

Window3:
strace -p [pid of local nc]

Window2:
[Right arrow][Right arrow][Ctrl+D]
[Ctrl+D]Uh oh[Enter]

What we see is pretty much as described. From the first line, we see “Hi there\n” on the other side. For the second line, we first see "Hi " appear, then “There” then “\n”.

From the third line, in the strace we can see the sequences representing the right-arrow key, and we can see the tty driver on the far side takes those sequences and interprets them to render the cursor two characters to the right.

The fourth line is where it gets more interesting. We send the tty driver the EOF byte, and the tty driver interprets this and gives the current active tty client a 0-byte return to read() and assumes we have no more data to send. But unlike bash, nc doesn’t care about a 0-byte read and is still looking for more data (as we can see in the strace). But if we continue to type and send more data (the “Uh oh”), we can see in the strace that the tty never sends this to the nc. So, to some definition, we’re still sending data to the local nc, but the tty driver isn’t actually relaying it

Sorry, I was looking more specifically at that DNAT rule

8   480 DNAT       6    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:2222 to:192.168.101.4:22

That rule exists in the host 192.168.86.73, correct? And from the guest, 192.168.101.4 you are attempting to ssh into 192.168.86.73:2222?

It might not be your issue (or only issue), but that DNAT rule says that if a connection comes in on port 2222, instead send it to 192.168.101.4:22. So 192.168.101.4->192.168.86.73:2222->192.168.101.4:22. I would have thought you’d want it to be a DNAT to 192.168.86.73, functionally doing port bending, so it goes 192.168.101.4->192.168.86.73:2222->192.168.86.73:22.

That doesn’t explain the connection refused, though, based on what you’ve said; there’s some fringe possibilities, but I wouldn’t expect for your setup if you hadn’t said (like your ~/.ssh/ssh_config defining an alternate ssh port for your guest OS than 22). It’s somewhat annoying, but it might be worthwhile to do a packet capture on both ends and follow exactly where the packet is going. So a

tcpdump -v -Nnn tcp port 22 or tcp port 2222

For general awareness, not all flags can match all parts of an iptables command; the part you included there with “–to offset” is only valid with the string module, and not the DNAT action. That said after playing around with it a little, iptables actually does short flag matching, so ‘DNAT --to 1.2.3.4’ ‘DNAT --to-d 1.2.3.4’ and ‘DNAT --to-destination’ are all equivalent, so not the source of your issue.

I am having trouble following the IP scheme, though. Is your Alma guest 192.168.101.4, or is that the host IP? If it’s Alma’s and you are attempting to ssh from that IP to the host with that iptables rule, what should happen is that DNAT would then redirect that connection back to Alma. If the guest doesn’t have a :22 listener, you’d get a connection refused from itself.

Your hook has

/sbin/iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport $HOST_PORT -j DNAT --to $GUEST_IP:$GUEST_PORT

But I’d didn’t think that “–to” was a flag for DNAT, I thought it was “–to-destination”

If you ‘iptables -nvL’ and ‘iptables -t nat -nvL’ do you see both your DNAT and forwarding rules (although if the default is ACCEPT and you don’t have other rules, the FORWARD one isn’t needed), and do you see the packet count for the rules increase?

I do the same, the bumpers feel kinda squishy to me.

Because it’s your computer