I’d have to check my iptables syntax again but I’m not sure you want the FORWARD between the networks unless C has a manual route to get traffic for the 192.168.15.0/24 network back via B. You just want to NAT A behind B’s IP on 192.168.38.0/24. I think the forwards are sending the traffic without doing NAT on A.
Phillips SonicCare for 20+ years. I think it’s helped me a lure with my dental care. Various models as the batteries wear out. The latest has Bluetooth that I never use but that doesn’t affect the cleaning part.
The phone or browser may be using DNS over HTTP (aka DoH), check if you can disable it for the wifi network. You may have to disable it on the phone or browser to get your desired behaviour - look up directions for your browser.
Right now - easy, with the difficulty going up over time as the main Chromium codebase continues to change (and especially as it gets security updates). I think I’ve read that some variants (Brave?) have committed to supporting ManifestV2 for as long as possible, for instance with their own fork.
BTRFS has RAID built into the file system - instead of using MD you use BTRFS profiles which tell the system how to handle data.
For instance
With this set up you could lose one device (of n, the total doesn’t matter), and not lose any data, and still be able to boot to recover with too much hassle.
BTRFS does block checksums, can scan for bit rot and recover from it, and generally tries to make your data safe. It technically supports raid5/6 for user data, the issue is around unclean shutdowns and a potential write hole where you could lose data, but if your system has a UPS backup and is on a relatively recent kernel it’s not any more dangerous than MD raid5/6 as I understand it.