Hey fuck you buddy

I’m done with this guy. 8 day old account, I’m thinking troll or idiot, unsure which, but either way not worth any time.

Ok?

In the post I replied to you said you can’t find used cars for less than 10k.

Now you’re saying people are too time/money poor to buy a $1k car, which is true for some, but that’s way different than your last point.

At some point you’re too poor to buy a car, and that sucks. Not sure how cheap people expect a 2000lb hunk of engineered metal, glass, and a combustion engine that can propel you 300 miles should be, but I think $1k is cheap for that and it sucks if you can’t buy it. Either way.

But sitting here and complaining that the cheapest car you can find is $10k in your area is dumb, because what that tells me is all you’re doing is going to look at nice stuff at carvana or CarMax.

Craigslist. Local auction. Random crap for sale at the curb in neighborhoods.

I guarantee you can go on Craigslist for your area right now and find cars that run for like $1k or less.

Probably all hoopdie ass shitboxes, but wait a couple months and keep an eye and you’ll find something that runs from the 2000s that’s not a total piece of shit for like $3k, with around 300-350k miles.

Are they great? No. Cheap as hell to insure? Yes. Cost the same price as 5 months of a car payment, and last for years with basic maintenance costs and worse gas mileage? Very likely yes.

Non native English speakers really struggle with at, on, and in. Don’t feel bad for being confused it’s super, super common, and most non native speakers will struggle with this no matter how fluent they become.

For general example, if somebody is sitting inside an airplane, you can say they’re on the plane, or they’re in the plane. You could also say they’re at the plane, but that’s really only used in certain contexts.

In the context you’re asking about, “at the port” at and in are synonymous, essentially. The article isn’t specific enough so it’s reasonable to assume that somewhere within the port’s boundary area, fence line perhaps, there was a temporary facility that was bombed.

Since they used the term “at” though, it COULD mean that it was directly outside the port boundaries. Like right outside the fence, perhaps.

Sorry. Not sure if any of this helps.

Beans, mf

Fucking BEANS is the answer

And onion, garlic, tomato, Bell pepper

But LOTS OF BEANS is the most correct answer

I thought your post was asking what to carry in your fish wallet

Hey guys anyone know where I can buy some cool stuff? Nah I’m not interested in defining the word cool and what it means to me, you figure it out

I have an affection for Bollywood movies and I’m really happy to learn this, thanks!

GREENLAND is covered in ice

And ICELAND… Is very nice uWu

They’re not the same.

Hiding an unlocked treasure chest in the forest is obscurity. Sure, you might be the only one who knows it’s there at first but eventually someone might come across it.

Having a vault at a bank branch is security - everyone knows there’s a vault there, but you’ll be damned if you’re going to get into it when you’re not authorized.

Good passwords, when implemented correctly, use hashing (one way encryption) to provide security. It’s not obscured, people know you need a password to access the thing (in our example)

jackiechan_confusedface.jpg

Who cares

I’ve watched let’s plays of strategy games that I want to be better at, in order to see people who don’t fucking suck like I do. But after I get a better idea on how to suck less, I stop.

How do you know “most” farms are exploiting immigrants?

SHOE

THIS IS THE BATTLE OF YOUR LIFE

Wireless cameras offer an easier vector for people to get into your camera feeds. Biggest risk to this is a poorly secured network in the first place, but the risk is still there.

Also, wireless is going to be inherently a worse quality video stream, and constant video traffic being sent over your Wi-Fi bogs down your entire network.

All that being said Wi-Fi cameras are just fine and as long as you have strong Wi-Fi security you’re really not at a real risk unless someone very savvy is specifically targeting you, in which case you’ve got bigger problems.

I have probably a dozen cheap wireless cameras in my house (to keep an eye on pets) and I have them spaced over two access points and honestly I don’t notice a difference on my Wi-Fi at all, but I’m sure it’s worse than if I didn’t have them. All my exterior cameras are wired, but that’s more because I want better quality streams and I’m running a wire anyways so might as well be PoE. Only exterior wireless camera I have is my doorbell but that’s because I didn’t want to run a new wire to it.

Overall wired cameras are much better quality, but they’re not as convenient. Make the decision for yourself based off of your priorities. Real tough to get a wireless camera with the fidelity needed to capture license plates clearly, but if you don’t need that then why worry about whether your gear can achieve it or not?

You can self host Protect. It’s what I did for ages when I was using a few of their cameras. Don’t have to use cloud unless you want to.

There’s a lot of downsides to ubiquiti (I’ve been dunking on them all over this thread) but there’s a LOT of great stuff too, and being able to self-host their management suite if you choose to do so is GREAT. That doesn’t make me want to invest in their walled garden for cameras, but for people who want to get into a functional ecosystem they’re a great choice. Overall the price:performance curve is not worth it to me, though, but neither are apple products, even though I know they work well also.

Their support for ONVIF is, as you said, limited. Being able to add a camera into your protect feed is a good start, but until they make it work better for PTZ, audio, sub stream capture, and everything else it’s not worth note IMO.

RTSP allows you to check a live feed in another software suite (even just VLC) but again, without the cameras themselves being ONVIF standard you’re missing all the aforementioned features and now you’re really REALLY overpaying for what is essentially a dumb camera.