Yeah, that’s fair.

I was focused on the marginal effect no matter how small, but you’re right that heat of solvation for gases is minuscule. I’m won over on the idea that it would be outweighed by cooling effect of gas expansion from fart decompression.

We need a room calorimeter and a lot of beans.

Care to elaborate on your stance?

I didn’t take shartery into account, but that’s a great point.

Yeah, you’re right — there would be some cooling from pressure release.

I might need to do some math tonight.

In a nutshell, the bonds in question are intermolecular forces, not bonds between atoms within a molecule.

The act of mixing fart into air is an exothermic process that does in fact explicitly generate heat. You can read up here if curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_change_of_solution

Granted, it’s not intuitive without getting deep into the weeds of thermodynamics, but when different molecules that are attracted to one another get mixed, that combined form is a state with lower chemical potential energy than the original substances would have if left separate. I.e. you’d need to invest energy to break up the intermolecular attractions if you wanted to re-separate the molecules. The potential energy “lost” in the process of mixing is extruded in the form of heat.

I have a degree in physics and work in biomed R&D. I am a qualified fart scientist — this is what I live for.

Top comment is wrong: the short answer to the post title is a hard “yes” due to enthalpy of solvation. The process of fart mixing into ambient air generates heat.

The answer to your followup question would require some modeling — with the main factors being fart composition, body mass, thermal gradient, and room size.

That’s how it already works — Caddy doesn’t require elevated privileges in general. You can toss a binary + config + certs anywhere in the homedir and it’ll go fine if you bind to a non-privileged port.

But users want software to do stuff like help set up certs and serve on ports 80 & 443, so what better option is there than to limit scope of execution by doing pinhole actions with sudo?

What would be the correct way for caddy to run actions like this that require elevated permissions, in your view?

Copyright holders who believe their IP is being violated by a given mod?

Rt, my bad for the personal attack; I was trying to be saucy with that opener and missed the mark.

That being said, your opinion is still hot garbage. It’s not hard at all to host dynamic services publicly with minimal risk if you know what you’re doing, and Jellyfin is pretty damn low risk.

The argument you’re making is comparable to going on a car forum and saying no one should ever drive on a public road because you might crash, and there are drivers doing things you can’t control. It’s factually true that you mitigate all risk by doing so, but misses the fact the people can and do drive on public roads all the time without much hurrah.

Sorry, I assumed you were intelligent and sanewashed your comment.

I assumed you were talking about the fact that internal web servers that services like Jellyfin run are often DoSable without a proxy.

Jellyfin is quite literally a web app and perfectly safe to host on the web. Wanna prove me wrong? I’ll happily spin up an instance and throw a $500 bounty on there for you.

Did you read the thread body? Op is using Caddy to reverse proxy, as they should be.

The smoothbrain top comment is claiming that Jellyfin “wasn’t designed to be exposed to the internet” AT ALL, reverse proxy or not. I agree that you want a reverse proxy in this situation — but you’re poking at a strawman of your own invention here, and putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.

Assuming you’ve forwarded ports 80 & 443 on your router, that’ll do just fine.

Speaking as a hacker and SWE, the cringelords telling you that exposing Jellyfin is some major liability are LARPers who don’t know what they’re talking about.