It's been a minute since I ran ZeroTier, so my memory is fuzzy.
Tailscale and ZT are not the same. ZT can do certain things that TS can't. One example is acting as a layer 2 bridge. Or a layer 3 bridge. TS can do neither. It can achieve mostly similar results though.
ZT can be a pain to setup. TS is a breeze. ZT's raw performance is quite poor. TS's is usually very good.
If I understood you correctly, you want both a way to access your home LAN when you're out - this is easy. Set up a node with NICs on the LAN subnets you want access to (I run it on my router), and configure the TS node to announce routes to those subnets. Install the TS client on your laptop and mobile and accept those routes. Job done.
If you also want to mask your egress - i.e. reach the Internet via your home network as if you were there - then you need a node (can be the same as above) configured to act as an Exit Node. When you want one of your devices to use this, just select the appropriate exit node. Job done.
> Like they won’t get credit for knowing what a zero trust network is if they describe the concept in a way that regular people might understand.
I've been trying to get a definition of zero trust at $client from the security people who are pushing tools onto our platform, so we can have an honest conversation around threats and risks, and finding the best balance of tools, techniques and processes to achieve their desired outcomes.
Unfortunately, it seems like everybody just want "zero trust" because a vendor sold them on that idea and they gave money to the vendor, so now there's the need to justify that expense and "extract value" from the tool - even if it may in fact be worse than the controls that are already in place.
That's the point of DRM-free ebooks though, isn't it? You download them and keep them safe so if the provider decides to cut access to your account, you remain in possession of the goods.
So the correct advice would be to avoid anyone buying DRM-encumbered digital property - the same as RMS has been making for who knows how long!
It's safer to assume that Amazon is always acting in bad faith and search to purchase your DRM free e-books from other vendors. There's plenty of other options out there besides Amazon
Pretty sure all of Baen's books are DRM free, and they offer virtually every ebook format around. They even used to include CDs with their hardbacks that would would include a huge subset of their collection. But they aren't a retailer, they're a publisher, so you're only getting the titles they publish.
> The fact that there have been no recorded deaths directly caused by cannabis in all of human history[1] should be enough indication that this is the least harmful substance we enjoy.
Also 0 from LSD:
"LSD at typical recreational doses (~50–250 μg) is considered to be very safe in terms of toxicity, with not a single toxicity-related death having been reported at such doses despite many millions of exposures"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Overdose
2 from psylocybin which edges on statistical error, but also:
"In reality, the 2016 Global Drug survey found that psilocybin mushrooms are the safest recreational drug. Of 12,000 people who reported using magic mushrooms, just 0.2% sought emergency medical attention, at least five times less than the rate for cocaine, LSD, and MDMA."
https://recovered.org/hallucinogens/psilocybin/can-you-overd...
So, even though cannabis does seem to be very safe, it's not necessarily _the least harmful_.
While that's true, I don't consider psychedelics to be within the same realm of safety as cannabis. Cannabis does have psychoactive effects, of course, but it doesn't induce visual and auditory hallucinations with the intensity that LSD, psilocybin, or even MDMA do. I do think that cannabis can make mental disorders such as anxiety worse in people who are already prone to them, but psychedelics are far more dangerous in that sense, especially with higher dosages. These effects can sometimes persist long after the effects of the substance wear off.
Also, synthetic compounds such as LSD and MDMA which have only been around for a ~century don't have the historical record of cannabis, psilocybin, and other substances found in nature, which humans have consumed for thousands of years. So to me those are intuitively less "safe".
Dosage matters. Lots of folks take psilocybin and lsd on a daily basis.
Also the weed we smoke today is absolutely nothing like historical cannabis. The potency is hundreds of times higher, depending on what they're breeding for.
> Dosage matters. Lots of folks take psilocybin and lsd on a daily basis.
Microdosing is not the same as recreational usage. Not many people take LSD or psilocybin recreationally that often. Cannabis recreational usage is much more common, with far lower health risks.
> Also the weed we smoke today is absolutely nothing like historical cannabis.
It's much stronger, but I wouldn't say it's "absolutely nothing" like historical cannabis. The way we consume it (concentrates, edibles, etc.) also makes it much more potent. But even that pales in comparison with the effects of moderate doses of psychedelics, which can have lasting psychological effects.
So, sure, dosage matters, but these substances have fundamentally different psychoactive effects.
