Kid_Thunder
A 30% cut for steam games sold on steam and a 0% cut for steam keys sold by the publisher wherever they want with the caveat that they must give steam users the same sales at around the same time. They get their games hosted on Steam's industry best CDN, a page with support for images and videos, an API with features users like, workshop API for mod hosting and delivery, and other SteamWorks API stuff for stuff like multiplayer, patch management without charging a fee for it, forum hosting to hit the highlights. Pretty much all of that drives engagement and is mostly turn-key though you do have to programmatically interact with their API when it makes sense.
Steam provides a lot of benefit for a 30% cut of what is sold on their store front and a lot more benefit for getting all of the above for a 0% cut if they sell steam keys outside of steam.
Huntington Beach is red, so it probably would be the same with a large turnout.
Sounds like you have nothing listening on port 80 that resolves for your domain for Let'sEncrypt to verify that you own the domain. You need a webserver listening on port 80 and that Certbot can access if you're using the http method.
Basically you're forwarding traffic to port 80 but there's nothing on port 80.
It is a little more complicated than that. Yes consumers are trained to expect sales. It drives an increase in purchases. However, JC Penny is a sort of mid retailer. It isn't high-end and it can't support price competition to the bottom. Much like Kohls that basically lives on having things constantly "on sale" while all they really are doing is pricing below MSRP which is meaningless, especially when it is specifically designed to be underpriced.
They didn't simply make "$29.99 + tax" into "$30, tax included" but they removed MSRP markings that were higher than their 'sale' prices. They removed the ".99" from prices and generally lowered them to under the MSRP always though not necessarily down to their 'sale' prices to overall bring prices down everywhere.
It's "Everyday Pricing" initiative to lower overall pricing couldn't compete with stores specifically designed to keep prices down and it certainly didn't have the reputation of being upscale for any merchandise. Therefore, the only way to survive is to make consumers believe everything is on sale, always. Essentially fooling the customer into believing that they are getting a deal on better products for a cheaper price.
If someone wants to buy nice clothes, they will buy nice clothes and pay more for them. Underpricing them could actually hurt sales. If someone wants a 'deal' then they are going to go to low price competitors. Mid tier retailers are always going to have a tough problem to solve, unless you fool the consumer.
That marketing gimmick isn't centralized to just the US or even North America. It works anywhere in the world for a mid retailer.
Perhaps, you believe that this makes the consumers stupid but that would be a universal generalization rather than an US cultural one.
I know shitpost and all that but this isn't actually true, as in it can't be verified. It was one small mention in a book (Threshold Resistance) by A&W owner Mr. Taubman. He basically said he wanted to know why his same priced 1/3 burgers weren't outselling competing 1/4 pounders...from a competitor...that I'm sure you can guess. So, he hired a marketing firm who put together a little focus group in the 80s. Some of those focus group members supposedly didn't know that 1/3 lb. is bigger than 1/4 lb. burgers.
Keep in mind that there's no evidence or any firm mentioned and the bias surrounding the author that is writing a book about his experiences including a failed venture.
All we know is it is one man's anecdote and it has been used for 39 years so far to make fun of Americans for supposedly not understanding fractions.
It's crazy that it sounds like paying customers might also have to opt-out.
Depends on if there's an IPv6NAT and how your ISP converts between IPv4 and IPv6 or actually supports IPv6 straight through. It also depends on your router.
Currently, there's still some debate since IPv6NAT (NAT66/NPT6/NATv6) isn't really needed for WAN boundaries for the reasons NAT exists. However, without it you are right on that this will be a problem for the consumer because PCs, IoT devices, printers, circuts or whatever my wife has, etc. could all be exploitable and even worse, you may never know you're contributing to the botnet.
As an example, I have a global IPv6 on a few on my devices. They can connect to IPv6 if it originates from me but if it originates from them or is UDP it doesn't route to my IPv6. My router doesn't care. It'll route it just fine either way. It would appear that my ISP has me behind one of the IPv6 NATs.
I'd imagine that's true for most people at home.
Truth Social where he is most active is owned by Trump Media and Technology. Right now SCOTUS is considering a case in court that may determine whether social media companies and websites in general can just ban people with differing opinions as a private entity or not.
NAT provides some measure of security as pure coincidence to how it works. It is not designed or intended to provide security. It does not inspect packet payloads in order to filter them for security. It looks at the header and attempts to route it to an internal IP address (your devices on your LAN) and if it cannot, it will drop the packet because the header will only have the external IP address -- the packet has no idea which device it is supposed to go to. Forwarding a port is telling the NAT to assume that when a packet hits a certain port, if it doesn't know the destination internal IP, forward it to some internal IP anyway.
The reason you can connect to websites, ssh outside, FTP, whatever, is because your connection comes from your internal IP first to some other IP and therefore, NAT knows which internal IP to route those packets to.
Take for example this scenario:
You download some software. It has malware that provides command and control (C2) to someone else outside of your network. A firewall and/or antivirus may be able to stop this and hopefully notify you. NAT will not help here. Furthermore, if you have uPNP enabled (usually it is by default on your router) the malware can forward any ports through your NAT to the compromised device opening it up to bot attacks and the like.
Another scenario:
You want to play a video game with you and your friends and you're going to host it. So either you manually forward those ports or perhaps uPNP just does it for you. That game has an exploit known by attackers, or perhaps it can just be DDoS'd. Your NAT isn't going to stop that. Hopefully a firewall will help you here. It definitely will if you set up explicit rules so that if they aren't your friend's IPs it will drop them. Though it is possible the game is exploitable and your friend's are compromised.
Take for example malware has been known to spread via Minecraft.
As I understand it, NAT is a firewall
NAT is not a firewall. NAT does not inspect packet payloads, it doesn't do anything except attempt to route packets to where they are supposed to go. If the connection originates from outside or it is a 'connectionless' protocol, the NAT has no idea which internal IP to route to, so it drops the packet.
NAT provides some security by sheer coincidence and not by design.
Why does it feel like EA tries really hard to kill off franchises with a loyal fanbase by constantly playing limbo under the lowering bar?