Just did a quick test, the certs do not bind to the port, only the domain/fqdn. So in short your reverse proxy/application is doing something wrong. Do you have the cert files? Can you test them inside a ubuntu:24.04 docker with the script bellow? (you’ll need to copy two cert files). That does TLS and is the application all in one script, but it could be two scripts one acting as the reverse proxy or whatever, doesn’t make a difference from the point of view of the client.

Lets Encrypt doesn’t do anything in port 80/443 unless you’re using the http challlenge AFAIK. And once you have the certs, they aren’t really involved in the connection, thus that can’t be the issue. Test by using curl against the script below, or your own infrastructure (each step/chain of it, the reverse proxy, the application ip, etc.)

But in short I think your reverse proxy configuration is just wrong, or you’re accessing it the wrong way on the client side. For example, using https://example.com/ instead of https://example.com:5050/.

# docker run --rm --net host -it ubuntu:24.04
# then install python3 and run this
import http.server
import ssl

PORT = 5201  # Change to your desired port
CERT_FILE = "/fullchain.pem"  # Path to your certificate file
KEY_FILE = "/key.pem"    # Path to your private key file

# Create a basic HTTP request handler
class SimpleHTTPRequestHandler(http.server.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler):
    def do_GET(self):
        self.send_response(200)
        self.send_header("Content-type", "text/html")
        self.end_headers()
        self.wfile.write(b"<h1>Welcome to the secure static server!</h1>")

# Set up the HTTP server
httpd = http.server.HTTPServer(("0.0.0.0", PORT), SimpleHTTPRequestHandler)

# Set up SSL context
ssl_context = ssl.SSLContext(ssl.PROTOCOL_TLS_SERVER)
ssl_context.load_cert_chain(certfile=CERT_FILE, keyfile=KEY_FILE)

# Wrap the server socket with SSL
httpd.socket = ssl_context.wrap_socket(httpd.socket, server_side=True)

print(f"Serving HTTPS on port {PORT}")
httpd.serve_forever()

I recommend watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbKGw8MQ0i8

AFAIK biometrics are only used to unlock the device’s keychain. So, in other words, it’s no different than using fingerprints to unlock your password manager (via the device’s keychain that has your actual password).

The compression issues are true for 1080p too, any dark scene on Netflix gets some horrible color banding and artifacts.

Ironically, the pirates don’t have that issue as their multi-gig torrents don’t have much compression compared to the some-hundred megs stream provided by Netflix

An Amazon Fire Stick is far smaller, much quieter, draws less power and is simpler to use than a general-purpose PC.

Plus, if I’m using a PC I’d probably only use Linux, so I’d have to deal with lower quality streams because DRM… so overall the experience would be worse.

Using a more ‘normie’ Windows box as a streaming box could work, but that doesn’t solve the noise(!) and power draw issues, that feels like a compromise rather than a choice.

I’ve recently bought a Fire Stick and don’t regret it one bit. It’s doesn’t fell janky and doesn’t have ads as far as I can tell. The provided remote inclues an IR emitter than can turn the TV on/off and change volume (why isn’t this provided by HDMI itself is beyond me), and it’s much faster than any smart tv so you can watch content without having to wait

They’ve violated the licenses

Did they? Because as far as I know they’re complying with the GPL and other licenses, since everybody that gets their RHEL license (and the software/binaries) also gets the sources. Or am I mistaken?

I don’t think the license says ‘grant everybody a copy of your source code’, only the ones that actually bought access to the binaries RHEL provides