Ah I see. It might not be a requirement though. In the case that the numbers are given with hardware offloaded compression it might just be slower when running on CPU. But I guess time will tell.

There is no mention of any extra hardware here though. The article even suggests this to benefit existing hardware like the steam deck.

So using the back of a knife to cut something is not more efficient than using the sharp side? I would say making better use of hardware is also an efficiency gain. You use the same hardware to do more, while not driving up cost significantly. That is efficiency in my book.

Partially. But they also host datasets.

This looks awesome! What I look for in such an app would be the following features

Meal Planner: Automatically create a meal plan that fits certain criteria such as calories, cooking time, ingredient cost etc. while still allowing for pre-defined meals. This way I could say "I want to eat burgers on this day, make me reach my calorie goal as best as possible by adjusting the other meals on that day" I could imagine this to be implemented using a linear optimizer where the user can add constraints. For example optimize calories / macro nutrients towards this value, minimize cost, minimize cooking time on weekdays, allow more cooking time on weekends... I guess the constraints could be any data available per recipe.

The second feature might be something NutriTrace already does but being able to cook a recipe and then have calories estimated by the weight of the food on my plate would be awesome for recipes where it is not possible to measure individual incredients or which do not have a fixed portion size such as for example Chili con Carne or Stew. This might also play into the linear optimizer thing, where the optimizer could vary the portion size if needed.

I would implement something like this myself but I currently lack the time, so if other people are interested in such a feature too, it might be worth implementing :)

If Claude understand code, Claude ship code just fine. If Claude understand but you don't, you no ship code, let Claude do!

Hmm I think I this does not work in case you meant to put the bridge as the parent of the VLANs, OPNsense does not allow this:

now, define 3 vlan with the vlan tags you defined in the switch + ap, you need to say that the port they are received is the bridged port

However I think I found another solution that works exactly as I want but it is very weird so be warned:

• Created vlan01.11 and vlan02.11 on igc1 and igc2 respectively, assigned them, enabled them and gave each a static ipv4 (192.168.11.1 and 192.168.11.2)
• Created a bridge with both VLANs as members, did NOT assign and enable this (when I do the setup breaks (?!))
• Use KEA DHCP instead of ISC:
  • In settings listen on both VLAN interfaces
  • In subnets create the subnet with subnet=192.168.11.1/24 and a pool of 192.168.11.21-192.168.11.254, uncheck "Match Client-id" and "Auto collect option data" and set Routers, DNS and NTP Servers to 192.168.11.1 and 192.168.11.2

This way KEA will give out IP addresses on all interfaces with a static IP in the defined subnet. Make sure to disable ISC DHCP as it otherwise caused issues with KEA and somehow also Unbound (I also enabled "Register ISC DHCP4 Leases" in Unbounds settings because I had weird issues with SERVFAIL there).

I repeated this process for the vlan0x.13 and vlan0x.14. Now internet access works on all VLAN interfaces, aswell as the normal interfaces and I can still define Rules for each VLAN.

What I don't get about this is why I cannot assign or enable the bridge interface... but I guess it works soo I'm happy. Thank you for your suggestion though!

Mainly I want to have separate USER, IOT and GUEST VLANs. So for example I don't want guests to be able to access IoT devices.

The AP and Switch tag these VLANs based on SSID and Port a device is connected to, so OPNsense receives tagged traffic that I can put rules on. I could probably just connect the AP to the Switch and be fine, but the Switch is 1Gb and the AP has a 2.5Gb port so I would like to keep both the switch and the AP connected to OPNsense directly.

Having the switch and AP on their own subnet is not really a requirement, but I guess it would be nice to also be able to control who can access their webinterfaces.

So really I just want to have:

• AP connected to one port on the firewall
• Switch connected to another port on the firewall
• Both AP and switch tag frames and pass them to OPNsense so I can apply rules.
• Devices on vlan01.11 can talk to devices on vlan02.11 and so on
• A single DHCP provides IPs to all devices connected to both the Switch and AP

Does that make it more clear?

I get what you are asking for but I don't think it is even necessary to have a list of users on the client in the first place using the MPA approach. I would guess the list of users is just available to the server, which pre-renders HTML out of it and provides it to the client.

If you are interested try Localsend, its even less effort than sharing via a messenger and its peer to peer. You can enable auto downloads for trusted peers then it will be sent directly to a folder of your choice once you send from your phone.