teawrecks
@teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on Looking for ... inventory management, I guess? 21 hours ago:
A CSV file should work.
- Comment on YSK that a new internet/account bypass during Windows 11 installs already exists. Here is a 7 step guide. 4 weeks ago:
Don’t say Linux then. If they already barely know windows, that’s an ideal situation, it’s going to be similarly confusing either way.
If your concern is that you think they would run into more stability issues when using a linux-based OS vs Windows, that’s a reasonable concern. But if we’re comparing against a sufficiently stable distro release, I don’t think it’s well founded.
- Comment on GitHub - SinTan1729/chhoto-url: A simple, blazingly fast, selfhosted URL shortener with no unnecessary features; written in Rust. 4 weeks ago:
It’s neat that this exists, but not neat if someone hosts it for a year, a bunch of fed users rely on it and share a bunch of links using it, and then the hoster takes it down for whatever reason, and now there are a bunch of dead links littered all over the place.
Even less neat if some malicious group can then buy the lapsed domain and forward all those dead links to ads and viruses.
Please host responsibly, is all I’m saying.
- Comment on Tools to migrate from Plex to Jellyfin? 5 weeks ago:
It’s not sunk cost, dude. We agreed that $120 will get them 5 years of service that meets their needs. Even if they switch to jellyfin after 5 years, they still got their money’s worth.
It’s only sunk cost if they are worse off than if they had switched earlier. I guess if you’re arguing that they would still have $120 if they switch today, I would argue they should still pay that $120 toward jellyfin’s development. And that’s assuming they have time to switch to jellyfin AND it fits 100% of their usecases, either of which could be untrue.
- Comment on Tools to migrate from Plex to Jellyfin? 5 weeks ago:
Or Plex currently does everything they need it to, and $120 for 5+ years of keeping that going without any interruption of service is very reasonable. In the meantime, jellyfin will only get better and there might even be other options available by then.
Stop trying to make the issue black and white, one-size-fits-all. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for people to use both Plex and Jellyfin.
- Comment on What host names do you use? 1 month ago:
Hah, they’re TrueNAS BSD jails, but yes, now I need to figure out how to rename the “Jails” tab in my UI to overlords.
Also, all the extra work my self-hosting endeavors generate is “creep”.
- Comment on What host names do you use? 1 month ago:
I use zerg units.
NAS is named Nydus Homelab with a GPU is Hydralisk Jail instance that I can use for random cron jobs is Drone
- Comment on Immich: opinion revised 1 month ago:
Afaik the cookie policy on your site is not GDPR compliant, at least how it is currently worded. If all cookies are “technically necessary” for function of the site, then I think all you need to do is say that. (I think for a wiki it’s acceptable to require clients to allow caching of image data, so your server doesn’t have to pay for more bandwidth).
- Comment on Server upgrade/replacement help 1 month ago:
My recommendation would be, have two machines: new for all your services, and use the old hw for your NAS. Each could be whatever OS you’re comfortable with using. Most everything on the services machine could be in docker configs, including network mount points to the NAS. You might be able to get away with using the 1080TI in the services box depending on what all you want to do (AI stuff, or newer stream transcoding requirements may require newer hw).
Moving the data from the old NAS to a new one without new disks will be a challenge, yes.
I have a TrueNAS box and used jails for services. I recently set up a debian box separately, and am switching from jails on truenas to docker on debian. Wish I had done this from the start.
- Comment on YSK in the U.S., you can buy produce directly from black farmers and they will ship it to you. It can cost less than your supermarket and will piss off people in power. 2 months ago:
Both are good. Each behaviour is a response to a different problem. Refer again to my footrace analogy.
- Comment on YSK in the U.S., you can buy produce directly from black farmers and they will ship it to you. It can cost less than your supermarket and will piss off people in power. 2 months ago:
shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color?
We should already be taxing proportional to income, and in the 60s when Affirmative Action was implemented, we were.
But the problem isn’t just that there is a lower class at all, the problem is that the lower class is disproportionately filled with black people and minorities as a direct result of racism.
If you think of it like a footrace, we ran the first half of the race giving black people a straight up disadvantage for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now most of the people in the back of the pack are black. We should already be helping all people in back to catch up to the rest of the pack, but this still means black people are disproportionately in the back as a direct result of that initial disadvantage. We could ignore it, and say that after another 300-400 years of equality, maybe things will even out on their own, but in the meantime you have a bunch of people who are living in poverty and dying, and we can scientifically say for an absolute fact that it’s a direct result of historical disadvantages targeting their ancestors based on race.
It’s inhumane to look those people in the eye and say, “tough luck, we’d help, but we decided we don’t do racism anymore.”
- Comment on YSK in the U.S., you can buy produce directly from black farmers and they will ship it to you. It can cost less than your supermarket and will piss off people in power. 2 months ago:
This is a remedial question, but that doesn’t make it a bad question. It is a hard problem to solve, and calling an advantage based on race somehow not racist does sound paradoxical at first glance. It’s important to be able to entertain the explanation without outright assuming you’re being attacked by a bunch of obtuse racists.
Hopefully we agree that:
- black americans are at a statistically significant socioeconomic disadvantage compared to white americans, both historically and to this day, and
- this is a direct result of a history of systematic disadvantages specifically targeting them based on their race
Let’s pretend the second bullet point has been solved, that systemic racism is over and done, and we’ve established a perfectly equal union. Even if that’s the case, we are left with the first bullet point as an ongoing problem. The challenge is now, how do you undo the very apparent damage that our history of racism caused, without specifically giving advantages to that group based on their race? And the short answer to a very complex question is: you can’t.
So the US government instituted “Affirmative Action” the goal of which was to deliberately give a targeted advantage to people who have had a history of targeted disadvantages in this country. This catches you up to roughly the 1960s.
But in the last 40 years or so, we continue to see lower class areas of the US disproportionately filled with black americans, and we also see widening wealth inequality affecting virtually everyone. So naturally we also see an increase of non-black people asking the same question as you: “I’m having a hard time too, why are they getting an advantage based on their race? That’s racism!”
The solution was to tax the rich, reduce wealth inequality, and continue to normalize disproportionate demographics. Instead, the wealthy used populism to hijack the republican party, and convince white americans that the minorities recieving these benefits were their enemy. And after 40ish years of pushing this narrative, they succeeded.
With the republican takeover of the federal govt, we can be virtually assured that any ongoing attempts to normalize these unfair demographics will be abandoned, at least at the federal level.
But it’s still a problem, just now one for the people and the states to solve. If you want to support black-owned farmers in an attempt to help pull historically disadvantaged groups out of poverty, you can. If not, that’s fine, just at least please vote for legislation that intends to reduce wealth inequality. (Note that history has exactly two ways of reducing wealth inequality: high taxes on the rich, or war. The question isn’t whether wealth will get redistributed, it’s how).
Tl; dr Yeah, it’s an advantage based on race to solve a problem caused by a history of disadvantages based on race.
- Comment on Do you refrain from participating to a community if it's hosted on Lemmy.ml ? 6 months ago:
*Besides the ones your instance has defederated from
- Comment on An out-of-warranty battery almost left this paralyzed man’s exoskeleton useless 6 months ago:
“Sorry, we can’t work on your machine unless your story goes viral. Just policy, you understand.”