An open source, self-hosted implementation of the Tailscale control server.

What is Tailscale
Tailscale is a modern VPN built on top of Wireguard. It works like an overlay network between the computers of your networks - using NAT traversal.

Everything in Tailscale is Open Source, except the GUI clients for proprietary OS (Windows and macOS/iOS), and the control server.

The control server works as an exchange point of Wireguard public keys for the nodes in the Tailscale network. It assigns the IP addresses of the clients, creates the boundaries between each user, enables sharing machines between users, and exposes the advertised routes of your nodes.

A Tailscale network (tailnet) is private network which Tailscale assigns to a user in terms of private users or an organisation.

Design goal
Headscale aims to implement a self-hosted, open source alternative to the Tailscale control server. Headscale's goal is to provide self-hosters and hobbyists with an open-source server they can use for their projects and labs. It implements a narrow scope, a single Tailscale network (tailnet), suitable for a personal use, or a small open-source organisation.

On its face, the administration's application for a partial stay simply asks the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the injunctions as to birthright citizenship (rather than decide the merits of the argument at this juncture). But the application also seeks to strike at the heart of an even larger issue — the explosion of universal injunctions being issued in recent years.

The rationale is spelled out succinctly in the application's next-to-last paragraph:

There are “more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts.” DHS, 140 S. Ct. at 600-601 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere. The sooner universal injunctions are “eliminated root and branch,” “the better.” Arizona, 40 F.4th at 398 (Sutton, C.J., concurring)

If nothing else, the Trump administration is prompting a thorough examination of the separation of powers and the scope of executive authority.

Climate change alarmist Michael Mann's ill-conceived lawsuit against the online critics continued to go pear-shaped Wednesday as a federal judge sanctioned Mann and his legal counsel for acting in "bad faith." That, of course, could easily describe Mann's entire career as a climate grifter. "Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence," wrote DC Superior Court Judge Alfred Irving, Jr., (George W. Bush appointee), "That Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding."

The saga began in 2012 when Mann, bruised from the email leak that seemed to indicate his famous "hockey stick" graph was a deliberate fraud (remember "hide the decline?"), decided to go after a handful of particularly vocal critics who dubbed him the "Jerry Sandusky of climate change," a hat tip to Penn State's legendary football coach. They were the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a CEI blogger Rand Simberg, National Review, and NR contributor Mark Steyn. //

The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — The defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics.

There was celebration on the left: Michael Mann climate scientist wins defamation case: NPR.

But it didn't last long. Last Tuesday, the trial judge, citing the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, reduced the punitive damages against Steyn to $5,000. But the hammer really fell Wednesday when the judge found that Mann and his attorney had lied about Mann's financial losses to inflate the jury verdict. //

Now Mann and his lawyer will be sanctioned.

I'd like to say that Mann lost this trial, but I'm not sure that's the case. He'll find deep-pocketed friends to pay off the money he lost. He's still employed at Penn State. Simberg and Steyn lost 13 years of their lives and have been largely sidelined from climate change debates. I have no knowledge of their finances, but I'm willing to bet they suffered a lot more than Mann. And Mann's suit has served the purpose for which it was intended. I didn't write about half of the very witty things I wanted to write about Mann because I don't have the time or money to fight off even a bullsh** lawsuit by someone with Mann's backing and resources. I'm sure others have made the same calculation.

The sanctions for lying will be mildly embarrassing to Mann, but what survives are the two judgments for defamation he won, which will serve as a precedent in the future.