That’s not the case, you just need to be able to make an outbound connection.

The minutiae of how certbot works or if that specific person actually did it right or wrong is kind of aside the point of my “intended to be funny but seemingly was not” comment about how sometimes the easiest solution to implement is the one you remember, even if it’s overkill for the immediate problem.

I think they generated real certs, rather than self signed.

This is confusing to me, because the point of the request seems to be “get a certificate”, not “get a self signed certificate generated by running the openssl command”. If you know how to get the result, it doesn’t really matter if you remembered offhand the shitty way or the overkill way.

Is it really more helpful to say “I remember how to do this, but let me lookup a different way that doesn’t use the tools I’m familiar with”?

Do you think that, in this example, using certbot is fucking shit up, or breaking something?

The thing about overkill is that it does work. If you’re accustomed to using a solution in a professional setting, it’s probably both overkill and also vastly more familiar than the bare minimum required for a class project that would be entirely unacceptable in a professional setting.

In OPs anecdote, they did get their certificates, so I don’t quite see your “intentionally fucking things up” claim as what’s happening.

I’ll be honest, I’ve had times where there’s the “simple” solution, and “the solution I remember off the top of my head”, and 10/10 the one that’s happening is the one that I remember because I just did it last week.

I have no desire to google the arguments for self signing a cert with openssl, and I cannot remember which webserver wants the cabundle and the public cert in the same file. If I had done it even kinda recently I’d still remember what to poke in the certbot config.

Not everything is an evolved functional trait, like the first poster was saying.
Loosing our hair and getting greasy was a functional adaptation. That grease getting stinky is just a byproduct that didn’t introduce a negative selection pressure.

Evolution doesn’t have a plan, it just takes the shortest path towards better that doesn’t make things worse.
Giraffes have a nerve that runs from their brain, down to their torso, then back up to the top of their neck. There’s no reason or benefit to this, it’s purely because when what the nerve runs to evolved in reptiles, it was at the top of the torso. Neck gets longer, nerve follows since there’s no pressure to select against stupid nerve layout. There’s a species of toad that evolved to become so small that their ear bones can’t actually pick up the sound of their species mating chirp. They still chirp, but none of them can hear it, and instead they signal based on seeing the motion of chirping.

People have been cleaning themselves for essentially forever. Bathing was not as common as it is today, but we know people have been washing their hands, feet and face regularly for many thousands of years.
Cleanliness features very heavily in religion dating back thousands of years, and the earliest soap recipe is from ~2500BC, although we know they were making at scale hundreds of years before then.
Wells to make water available in places where there’s no stream or river date back even further to the ~8000s BC.

Most people weren’t rocking perfumed soaps and immersion in hot water, but washing your clothes with a homemade soap, scrubbing your feet, hands and face with cold water and a rag every day or so and likewise your body roughly weekly was available to most people at a minimum. If you were near a river or body of water, like humans tend to prefer to live, washing your feet, hands and face every morning and a weekly scrub was perfectly comfortable.

Primates are generally very conscious of grooming. Humans are unique in regularly washing with water, but we’re also unique in being nearly hairless, remarkably greasy, and clever. It tracks that we’d figure out the water thing pretty fast.

Libertarians usually define liberty narrowly as “freedom from government”.
Freedom does not mean the ability to do as you please, but rather the ability to not be told what not to do, or to be made to do something you do not wish to do.
A libertarian usually does not object to wage slavery, and would disagree with the concept of wage slavery entirely, on the grounds that you were not forced to work a job you dislike, since you could always choose to starve instead.

What you’re looking for is one of the schools of anarchism.
Although usually painted as “anti-government, anti-society”, it actually derives from being against hierarchy, and is characterized generally (there are many schools) as being opposed to involuntary power hierarchies.
Sometimes government is the best way to reduce the total amount of coercion in the system, since forcing a lot of people to pay a little can free many, many people from being forced to do stuff they loath to survive.

Libertarians aren’t pro-liberty they’re anti-government, and anarchists aren’t pro-chaos they’re anti-coercian. They’re both entire political schools of thought, so I’ve obviously not encapsulated them entirely in two paragraphs.

But we still see a trend line of decreasing religiosity and a taming of extreme religious beliefs.
Children are way more likely to take the religion of their parents than otherwise, but they’re still new believers that the idea has to be able to take hold in, and if the idea just doesn’t fit then you’ll see a departure. It’s not like their religion is the only one trying to take root.

I just don’t think we see the world today that we would if religion spread with the force of population dynamics.

Well, that’s a type of pressure. Ogg the berry lover could well have passed on his genes.
For a long time we’ve largely been selecting for intelligence and social abilities.

Well, if that were the case wouldn’t we expect to see near universal religious belief now?
We can’t start the population set now, we should look at when religion started.

I’d posit that as time goes on, the religious beliefs tend to want to spread, but they also round off more difficult to wrangle aspects to maintain appeal to a wider audience. A belief system incompatible with observed reality or unpalatable to potential new believers is going to be less robust than one that fits and is welcoming.

It’s why today’s extremists are generally more tame than the commonplace believers of the past.

Eventually some people catch a version of the religion so weak that it’s only kinda comparable, and you have the Christian who never goes to church or thinks about it really, or the person who’s a vague notion of spiritual without much specific behind it beyond a vague notion of purposeful intention to the world.

Well that’s interesting, thanks!

I can, will and has. Push back would be on what it means to be “weaker”.
When we say evolution selects for strength, we mean strength in terms of environmental fitness with regards to propagation, not anything specific to health, well-being or survival.

Our earliest “medical” advances actually left us significantly less robust over time.
Techniques like “not leaving the sick or injured to die”, “blankets”, “carrying food and water” and things like that.
Over time, that led is to continue with bigger brains, longer gestation, more care for the mother and infant before and after birth, and old people.
This led to a spiral of smarter, more educated, more cared for people who were able to pass on knowledge between multiple generations.
None of that could have happened if we hadn’t started caring for less robust people, like old man Greg with the bad leg, scary stories about snakes and knows all the berries, or Jane who is somehow so pregnant she can barely walk and who’s last kid was born with a massive cone head and no kneecaps.

What makes us unique as a species is that we have a much larger ability to influence what exactly defines environmental fitness than others.
When we develop new medical treatments, we are potentially making ourselves less robust going forwards, but we’re also making it so that particular thing has less weight in determining what “fitness” means for a human, and more weight is put on “clever” and “social”.
Natural selection selected for a creature that can’t opt out of the game, but can bump the table.

So we will inevitably allow a genetic condition that’s currently awful to become benign and commonplace.
We’ll also keep selecting for smart, funny, social and dump truck hips.

My biggest contenders are diabetes, gluten intolerance and hemophilia. They all used to be death sentences, and now they’re just “not”. There’s also the interesting possibility of heritable genetic treatment becoming possible, which puts a lot of what I said into an interesting position.
We’ll probably keep selecting for those big hips though.

I kinda like a little thingy that has a USB plug on one end under a cap, and a salt shaker on the other. Or maybe like a little hot sauce shaker, if we’re moving away from salt.

Yeah, look at image before title, wondered if it was a salt shaker and what language uses kalt for salt.

Hrm, USB stick salt shaker…

Do you mean the speech, or the actual current condition of the nation?

The speech is mostly a tool for the president to have everyone look at them and announce what The Agenda™ for the year should be. Congress doesn’t have to listen, but if the presidents party controls either house, their role as the head of the party pretty much ensures that there will at least be bills proposed on their agenda.
Usually don’t bother to watch it and instead read the summary unless it’s during a rough time or we have reason to expect something interesting, like the 2021 speech. Lot of infrastructure talk, and we just had some pretty scary things happen.

No reason at all not to. :)

I like the gauge block notion. A (quick) search says that it’s a combination of surface tension from the oils they’re coated in, suction (gone for us), and the super flat surfaces slightly exchanging electrons and bonding in close proximity.

I’m a fan of the surface tension angle as the “rocket of suction cups”, since it’s got that “non-binding force” element, where welding or glue feels different, and Velcro feels like a tangle.
It’s “pull-y” where suction is “push-y”.

Now the question is would surface tension grab something in a vacuum the way it does outside of one. I know you’d have water sublimate off, so it’s questionable to me.

Phrases I did not expect to think this early in the morning: "what’s the rocket engine of suction cups?”

It’s a good line of thinking for trying to be scientific (how do we replicate conditions better, and where might we be introducing errors that would make the experiment “bad”), so you didn’t deserve a down vote.

That being said, it won’t change the outcome too much. In a vacuum, it’s just pushing a bit of rubber against something, there’s no possibility for suction. It’ll just fall off.
If it starts outside a vacuum, the force of air pushing on the outside will keep the rubber from pushing away from the surface at first, but as the air pressure drops, the little bit of air under the cup will give it the tiniest oomph of extra push as it falls off in a way visually indistinguishable from the vacuum scenario.