nginx configuration works over curl, but not in browser?

I have an nginx configuration resembling something like this:

# mysite.com nginx config
server {
        listen 80 default_server;
        listen (::):80 default_server;
        root /usr/share/mysite.com/ui;
        index index.html;
        server_name lbhost;

        location /ads.txt { 
            alias /usr/share/mysite.com/ads.txt; 
        }

        location /api/ {
            proxy_pass       http://localhost:5000/api/;
            proxy_set_header   X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
            proxy_set_header   X-NginX-Proxy true;
            proxy_http_version 1.1;
            proxy_set_header   Upgrade $http_upgrade;
            proxy_set_header   Connection keep-alive;
            proxy_set_header   Host $host;
            proxy_cache_bypass $http_upgrade;
        }

        location / {
            proxy_pass http://localhost:4000;
        }
}

The load-balanced servers have a .NET Core web api and an Angular Universal UI. This seems to work pretty well, but

… the api proxy seems to work, as does the root paths, and (usually) the ads.txt file as well, but… if I do something like

ubuntu@my-host-name:~$ curl http://localhost/api/version

…from the local machine, I’ll get a response like:

2020.5.13.4ubuntu@my-host-name:~$

… yet if I hit this endpoint from a browser, I get a completely empty page… even the source is empty. I would expect to see that text “2020.5.13.4” in the source document of the page at least.

How do I need to configure my nginx service to properly send responses?

Which methods should I connect a VPN, via that-vpn-app or through an VPN configuration on network manager linux?

I saw there are 2 available methods (that I know of and currently focusing on) to connect to a vpn. The first one is through their application based of that vpn provider. The others is by configuring VPN Connections > OpenVpn.

enter image description here

I have searched on internet and found link1 and link2. Of course, method from link2 is easier and less complex than the method in link1, but this is not my main focus here. I can’t find anywhere explain pros and cons of these 2 methods or any page explain why should a user pick one method over the others.

To be more specific in comparison, I have narrowed some areas to focus on below. Feel free to add more if there are something I should know, but missed.

  1. Speed / overall performance of the connection
  2. Security –> The permission that the VPN has accessed to on user’s devices. I’m not sure if there is any major important thing to consider if compare between OSes. Feel free to add in the answer if you would like, but I current am focusing on linux.
  3. Others. Please explain.

By the way, I used the link of the same VPN provider to show that there are actually more than 1 method to connect to the same VPN provider and not just something that varies between each VPN provider.

plugins – (configuration error) Invalid mailbox syntax is used in the Reply-To field

form code:

enter code here

IMPORTANT!
Please fill out the entire form.

Owner Fast Name *
[text* text-1180]

Owner Last Name *
[text* text-1735 id:form28]

Owner E-mail
[email
email-1951]

Business Name *
[text* text-1736 id:form29]

Business Address 1
[text text-1737 id:form30]

Business Address 2
[text text-1738 id:form31]

Business Address City
[text text-1739 id:form32]

Business Address State
[text text-1740 id:form33]

Business Address Zip Code
[text text-1741 id:form34]

EIN
[text text-1742 id:form35]

State of Company Registration
[text text-1743 id:form36]

State Registration Number
[text text-1744 id:form317]

Date of Formation
[date date-1745 id:form318]

Business Phone Number *
[text* text-1746 id:form319]

Owner Phone Number *
[text* text-1747 id:form410]

Nature of Business
[text text-1748 id:form411]

.

Type of business
[checkbox checkbox-1191 id:form57 “Retail” “Wholesale” “Manufacture” “Service”]

Organization/Business Type
[checkbox checkbox-1938 id:form58 “Sole Proprietorship” “General Partnership” “Limited Partnership” “Farm” “Other” “C Corporation” “S Corporation” “Limited Liability” “Partnership” “Limited” “Liability” “Company”]

[multistep “1-2-https://theredspectrum.com/how-it-works/”]

[submit “Submit”]

Additional Headers
Reply-To:

But why this is show : Invalid mailbox syntax is used in the Reply-To field.

How can I fix this ?

turing machines – Reduction from HALT to MPCP via TM Configuration Transitions

I have book with a very simple reduction from HALT to MPCP and I suspect that it is wrong.

Add the following dominos $(top, bottom$):

  • Start: $(langle varepsilon rangle ,langle varepsilonrangle langlekappa_0rangle)$ for initial configuration $kappa_0$.

  • Step: $(langlekappa_irangle,
    langlekappa_jrangle)$
    for all configuration transitions $kappa_i rightarrow kappa_j$

  • Finish: $(langlekappa_erangle langlevarepsilonrangle, langlevarepsilonrangle)$ for all end final configurations $kappa_e$

This is much easier than what I see e.g. in Sipser. Is there an error in this proof?


You may need the definition of configuration transitions:

Let $T = (S, Sigma, Pi, delta, s_0, _, E)$ be a TM. Every triple
$(nu,s,omega)$ with $nu, omega in Pi^{+}$ and $s
in S$
is called configuration of $T$. The configuration transitions
$rightarrow_{T}$ is defined as

movement to the right: $delta(s,sigma) = (s’, sigma’, rightarrow), varrho, sigma in Pi$

begin{align*}
(nu varrho, s, sigma omega) rightarrow_{T} left{begin{array}{ll}%
(nu varrho sigma’ ,s’, omega) & mbox{if $omega neq epsilon$} \
(nu varrho sigma’ ,s’, _) & mbox{if $omega = epsilon$}
end{array}right.
end{align*}

movement to the left: $delta(s, sigma) = (s’, sigma’, leftarrow), varrho, sigma in Pi$
begin{align*}
(nu varrho, s, sigma omega) rightarrow_{T} left{begin{array}{ll}%
(nu, {s’}, varrho {sigma’} omega) & mbox{if $nu neq epsilon$} \
(_, {s’}, varrho {sigma’} omega) & mbox{if $nu = epsilon$}
end{array}right.
end{align*}


configuration – Cannot intall Dev Desktop on OSX Catatlina … missing Configuation files

First static.ini was missing.
I used terminal and just made one up.
Then dynamic.xml was reported missing when i tried to start the DevDesktop

the file path was… /Applications/DevDesktop/Acquia Dev Desktop.app/Contents/MacOS/dynamic.xml

DNS configuration question

Hi,

I’m configurating the DNS, and i have a question:

In OVH you can buy "IP Failover"

You recommend me use the defaults server’s IP for … | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1808488&goto=newpost

Probability of edges and expected number of edges in the configuration model

This question is related to the question: Probability that there is at least one edge in the configuration model

There is something I do not understand in the calculation of the expected number of edges between $ i $ and $ j $ nodes in the configuration model, $ p_ {ij} $. The argument given everywhere I've seen is:

  1. There is $ 2m $ stupas in the network, with $ k_i $ in the knot $ i $ and $ k_j $ in the knot $ j $.
  2. Take a stup of the knot $ i $, there is $ k_j $ possible stups to connect it to the node $ j $, so the probability of connecting it to the node $ j $ East $ frac {k_j} {2m-1} $, the $ 2m-1 $ because you can't connect it to the same stup you came from.
  3. There is $ k_i $ stups in node i, so the expected number of edges just adds up the different probabilities and $ p_ {ij} = k_i times frac {k_j} {2m-1} $.

I don't understand step 3. I think once there has been an edge between the knots $ i $ and $ j $, the probability of connecting the next stup should change accordingly, because this stup no longer exists: $ frac {k_j-1} {2m-2} $. But also, each new stup considered in the node $ i $ has one possible edge less to connect (because the others have already been connected), so the total of the edges available in the denominator should also decrease: $ 2m-2 $, $ 2 million to $ 3, …, $ 2m-k_i $.

Instead, I would do it this way:
$$ p_ {ij} = 1 – bar {p} _ {ij}, $$
or $ bar {p} _ {ij} $ is the probability that there is no edge between the nodes $ i $ and $ j $. So,
$$ bar {p} _ {ij} = bar {p} _ {{i_1} j} times bar {p} _ {{i_2} j} times dots times bar {p} _ {{i_ {k_i}} j}, $$
or $ bar {p} _ {{i_1} j} $ is the probability that there is no edge between the first stup of the node $ i $ at the knot $ j $ and $ bar {p} _ {{i_1} j} = frac {2m-1-k_j} {2m-1} $. Analogously for the other stupas, we get
$$ bar {p} _ {ij} = frac {2m-1-k_j} {2m-1} frac {2m-2-k_j} {2m-2} dots frac {2m-k_i-k_j } {2m-k_i} = left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-1} right) left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-2} right) dots left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-k_i} right). $$

So
$$ p_ {ij} = 1- left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-1} right) left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-2} right) … left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-k_i} right). $$

I can retrieve from this expression the other within the limit of the large number of edges $ m to infty $, then $ 2m-k_i simeq … simeq 2m – 2 simeq 2m – $ 1 and
$$ p_ {ij} simeq 1- left (1 – frac {k_j} {2m-1} right) ^ {k_i} simeq 1 – left (1 – frac {k_i k_j} {2m- 1} right) = frac {k_i k_j} {2m-1}, $$
where, in the second step, I used the extension of the series $ (1 – x) ^ a = 1 – ax + mathcal {O} (x ^ 2) $ for $ x to 0 $.

Question: Does this mean that only the expected number of edges between $ i $ and $ j $ the configuration model nodes are $ p_ {ij} = frac {k_i k_j} {2m-1} $ in the large number of edges $ m $ limit? If that is the case, I find this strange because they don't specify it in any of the sources I have consulted. Instead, they seem to be saying $ p_ {ij} = frac {k_i k_j} {2m-1} $ is the general expression which, in the large number of limits, becomes $ p_ {ij} = frac {k_i k_j} {2m} $.

Should we put magento in maintenance mode before installation: upgrade and configuration: di: compilation?

Does he run setup:upgrade or setup:di:compile cause problems if i run it in production? I am concerned that my customers may see bugs after calling these commands.

configuration of the miner – Unable to replicate validation errors of the block header: too old and too new

we are playing with the regtest and we cannot reproduce the validation error of the two blocks managed here
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5b24f6084ede92d0f493ff416b4726245140b2c1/src/validation.cpp#L3493-L3499

We understand that GetBlockTime and nAdjustedTime have values ​​close to bones now() time, so manually move the bone clock can trigger validation errors.

But we couldn't 🙁

Step to reproduce "too old"

  • start regtest bitcoin daemon
  • mine 101 block
  • change the bone clock 1h behind
  • mine a new block

we expect to get "too old" validation error but we got no error

Step to reproduce "too much time"

  • start regtest bitcoin daemon
  • mine 101 blocks
  • change bone clock 3h forward
  • mine a new block

we expect to get a "too recent" validation error, but we got no errors

co.combinatorics – Do you recognize this structure configuration on a poset?

Configuration is we have a finished poset $ P $, with a multiplicative rank function $ r_ {xy}: P times P rightarrow mathbb {N} $, and a symmetrical pairing $ langle , rangle: P times P rightarrow mathbb {N} $. Our poset has a unique minimal element $ hat {0} $, and a maximum element distinguished $ 1 $, But $ 1 $ does not necessarily cover all elements of $ P $. From this we get an associated automorphism $ L: mathbb {Q} (P) rightarrow mathbb {Q} (P) $ given by $$ L (y) = sum_ {x leq y} frac {r _ { hat {0} x}} {r _ { hat {0} 1}} mu_P (x, y) x. $$

Extension of our form to $ mathbb {Q} (P) $ by linearity, we are interested in the functions $ f: P rightarrow mathbb {Z} $ that satisfy the functional equation: $$ f (x) = sum_ {y in P} f (y) langle x, L (y) rangle. $$

My question is, have you ever seen this bunch of structure in other posets? I was told it could look like Khazdan Lustzig-like recurrences, but I couldn't see how to relate that to the general Khazdan-Luztig-Stanley polynomial of a poset. If you've seen this kind of thing in a different context, it would also be very useful to hear, I don't know much about these things, and any references that show this configuration would be useful for me.