An inbound only DNS forwarding rule would be pointless. All DNS queries should be originating from within the network.
EDIT
I think I see what you’re getting at. Assuming that the firewall is running on the NAS vs on the router.
The OP doesn’t specify, but I would assume the firewall rule would be on the router, as that makes the most sense to force all DNS requests on the network to go through the pihole.
As someone who took the plunge years ago, you just have to accept that some programs will just be unusable. There are likely alternatives, though very few will be ‘drop in’ replacements so to speak. So there will be a learning curve.
It’s the price you pay to have full control of your system. As time goes on, it gets easier.
On one hand, I get it. You’re used to Windows and want to use an environment you’re used to and apps you’re comfortable with.
On the other, you need to be aware that you’re going to be constantly fighting an uphill battle. Microsoft doesn’t care that you don’t want those programs using resources, they’re going to install them because it’s in the best interest of their shareholders. The programs might be able to be removed using third party tools, but then you’re relying on random tools found on the internet to remove bits of your operating system without hurting anything or doing anything malicious.
The data these programs gather is more valuable to Microsoft than the blowback because this is the exact stance people will take: sure it sucks that this is being forced upon me, but it’s still better than leaving. So I’ll either deal with it (99% if users are here) or ill find a random program and cross my fingers it does only what’s on the label.
The only solution I see is to swap to something else, causing Microsoft to lose market share and thereby convincing shareholders not to force this on users.
The choice is yours.
I agree.
So the solution, OP, is to set the DNS settings on your NAS to your router’s internal IP so the firewall can redirect the traffic to your new port.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for turning a blind eye to Mozilla. I think the argument being made is that a monoculture for browsers is a concern that can outweigh some blunders Mozilla makes.
I’m old enough to remember what a shit show ActiveX was for web security.
The beauty of Lemmy is the federation. Don’t like how an instance is being moderated? Make your own.
Nothing made by humans will ever be perfect, but at least with Lemmy the control isn’t in the hands of a megacorp trying to profit from us.
run win.exe
Open AOL
Log in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0
If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.
Democrats would need a supermajority in the Senate to achieve that. Anything less than 2/3rds and nobody gets removed.
The power to make laws, like codifying Roe vs Wade, lies with congress.
I’m peeved about the SC ruling too, but they didn’t unilaterally hand over all governmental power to the executive.
Because the president had unilateral authority to make laws, right?
Nevermind Mitch McConnell standing up in the senate and saying they’d refuse to cooperate with Obama, it’s Obama’s fault.
In a system rigged to support one party over another.
You can declare them identical on this issue, but even considering how complex politics is, this is the system we have to work with. First Past the Post voting can only support two political parties, full stop. Voting for a third party splits the vote for one party and secures a victory for the other.
It’s fucked. But there are real, long term lasting implications to this election beyond the tragedy in Israel. Republicans are eyeing repealing things like no fault divorce, marriage equality, and voting rights.
Authoritarianism is on the rise globally, and holding Biden accountable for Gaza will put the guy who said his nuclear button is bigger in office. The guy who already tried to illegally remain in office, has not conceded his election loss, and maintains to this day that he is the duly elected President. Who stole classified documents and kept them, refused to return them when asked, and only after being caught red handed with them did he say he declassified them with his mind.
Hold Biden accountable for his actions and inactions in Gaza. But don’t kid yourself that because they’re both bad in Israel that they’re otherwise identical.
If you think Biden is responsible for the crisis in Gaza, do you think giving the Presidency to the guy who has said, on multiple occasions (including in the debate last night) that “Israel should just finish the job” will make things better?
I guess you can’t have a humanitarian crisis after the genocide is complete…
Obviously there has to be an incentive for Jim-bob to tie up his retirement savings and credit worthiness in a house that he doesn’t live in. You may not like the fact that people have to qualify for bank loans to buy property, but this is the world we live in.
Obviously if I think landlords are a leech on society, then I must also be in favor of free property for everyone! There’s no issue with having to qualify for a loan for a house, but don’t piss in my shoes and call it rain. All landlords do is drive up the price of living for someone who could have potentially bought the house they’re renting. If they’re able to rent it, then they’re clearly able to afford the mortgage payments, upkeep, taxes, etc. Plus extra to support the living expenses of the owner.
Oh, your anecdotal evidence about your parent’s home surely beats my Nobel-prize winning economics study citation.
I sure missed any citations in your post. Unless you think just naming a publication counts as citing it.
Because I have anecdotal evidence for someone who bought a house for $400k in 2004 and then later sold it for $280k after the real estate crash.
cool story bro. There’s always cases of people losing out because they buy high and sell low, but in your anecdote, what would the $400,000 home be worth today had the homeowner held onto the property? There is no stock portfolio that would appreciate in value the same way houses have.
No, you get different scam calls which you assume are the same but are definitely not, since these ones just go out to names on lists of property owners, not random residents.
Tell me more about the phone calls I receive and how they’re not ‘real’ scam calls.
The tenants are able to live in a house that they can’t afford to buy because they don’t have credit and credentials that satisfy the bank.
So they should pay the same expenses, PLUS extra to support the landlord who could meet the bank’s criteria for a loan?
The tenants are able to move out with a couple months notice if they get a job elsewhere. They don’t have to worry about selling the house or finding a way to pay double mortgages when they move elsewhere…
They also don’t have to worry about cashing in on the appreciated value of the house since they moved in…
The tenants money is not tied up in a property, they are able to invest it in the stock market which has a higher rate of return than home ownership (which only keeps pace with inflation on average, per Case Schiller).
Funny joke. My parents bought a house for $90,000 in 1993 that is worth ~$400,000+ today. What percentage of investments could offer such a yield in the same time-frame?
The tenants don’t get constant calls from scammers claiming they want to pay your property for CASH TODAY.
I still get those same scam calls despite not being a homeowner.
Got anything else?
You make that sound like anyone who’s able to rent a place is able to buy a place
Call me old fashioned, but if you’re able to pay for the full cost of the mortgage and maintenance of the property, plus your ‘share’ of the living expenses of your landlord then yeah, I think you’re able to afford the property without the landlord.
All your landlord adds is making the property more expensive so you can support their lifestyle.
Sure maybe all housing should be free
Damn, that’s a hell of a jump to make from my argument. Where did I say that housing should be free?
A place to live without having to handle maintenance/upkeep themselves, to be approved for a mortgage, save up for a downpayment, or to have to sell (and navigate all the mess of that process) when they need to move.
And you end up paying for all of those anyway, plus extra. Minus the equity increase as the house appreciates in value over time. The only party it makes long term financial sense for is the Landlord.
the maintenance costs passed to the renter are dispersed across time as well, so they aren’t having to foot the full cost of say, a new fridge suddenly.
But the landlord charges enough above the mortgage payments to cover that cost, on top of the extra added for profit. The renter could save that extra money, cover the sudden cost of a fridge or washing machine, and have money left over vs renting.
I’d say there’s a difference between renting out a portion of a house the landlord also lives in and purchasing whole other homes and renting them out.
Besides, no matter how nice the multi-home-owning landlord is, the reality is they don’t purchase homes and rent them out without making a profit on all expected costs, maintenance included. The better deal for the renter renting a whole home would be to own the home and maintain it, because then they’re saving the profit the landlord charges.
A nice polite leech is still a leech.
Sure, everything you purchase in a capitalistic society has profit added to it, but normally there’s also added value. You pay more in the brick and mortar store vs buying online because the added value is getting the item immediately. You pay more for the car part at the mechanics shop vs doing it yourself because having a professional install it adds value.
What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?
Betty and Bob are in an unfortunate situation, but they’re taking a thing of value and charging money to cover all costs, and make a profit. The tenant is therefore paying the mortgage and all repair costs, and then even more to support what amounts to a leech.
It might be a good arrangement for Betty and Bob, but it makes living somewhere more expensive.
Which is the general point. I can be sympathetic to Betty and Bob, but landlords buying houses leaves less houses for everyone else for a ‘job’ that doesn’t add any real value to society. It just props up someone with the economic means to buy multiple houses and make them a living while hanging the rest of us out to dry.
I work for an ISP in the southeast USA as a field technician and it’s dirty work sometimes. Fixing rodent damage to fiber connection boxes for businesses, placing temporary cables when underground lines get cut, working in dusty equipment closets, etc.
It’s not bad or hard work most days.