The problem is that on Linux it competes with bash and dozens of way better terminals.

We have swarm migration season. Picture thousands of paper wasp all flying through open wide savannas in stereotypical black clouds of murder. There’s no staying away. If they come, you wait.

Curiously, in my country we are taught that for wasps and hornets you must stay silent and wait still until they leave. Like dealing with a blind predator.

People are using NAS for things they aren’t meant to do. They are a storage service and aren’t supposed to be anything else. In a typical data center model, NAS servers are intermediate storage. Meant for fast data transfers, massive storage capabilities and redundant disk fault tolerance. We are talking hundreds of hard drives and hundred gigabit connection speeds inside the data center. This is expensive to run, so they are also very energy efficient, meant to keep the least amount of required disks spinning at any given moment.

They are not for video rendering, data wrangling, calculations or hosting dozens of docker containers. That’s what servers are for.

Servers have the processing power and host the actual services. They then request data from a NAS as needed. For example, a web service with tons of images and video will only have the site logic and UI images on the server itself. The content, video and images, will be on the NAS. The server will have a temporary cache where it will copy the most frequently accessed content and new content on demand. Any format conversion, video encoding, etc. Will be done by the server, not the NAS.

Now, on self-hosting of course, anything goes and they are just computers at the end of the day. But if a machine was purpose made for being a NAS server, it won’t have the most powerful processor, and that’s by design. They will have, however, an insane amount of sata, PCI-e channels and drive bays. And a ton of sophisticated hardware for data redundancy, hotswap capacity and high speed networks that is less frequent in servers.

Beware, Gnucash is meant to be pro level accounting software. Is not a simple ledger or a tech/crypto gateway. I also use it for my personal life, but there’s like 30% of features I don’t use because they’re business accounting stuff I don’t need. It predates the cloud, it cares not for the latest trends, it crunches numbers and spits out reports. That’s part of what I like about it. It is not simple but it also isn’t bloated.

On the contrary. It relies on the premise of segregating binaries, config and data. But since it is only running one app, then it is a bare minimum version of it. Most containers systems include elements that also deduplicate common required binaries. So, the containers are usually very small and efficient. While a traditional system’s libraries could balloon to dozens of gigabytes, pieces of which are only used at a time by different software. Containers can be made headless and barebones very easily. Cutting the fat, and leaving only the most essential libraries. Fitting in very tiny and underpowered hardware applications without losing functionality or performance.

Don’t be afraid of it, it’s like Lego but for software.

Immutables are absolutely viable for tinkering. The most customized system I’ve ever had was an immutable distro, and I could tinker with 100% confidence that I would never lose the system.

Depends on the country the computer is being sold in. Microsoft has different pricing structures per country and the OEM selling the computer pays down the line based on sales numbers. That’s the main way MS Windows makes money. The price of Windows has always been part of the computer’s price. It’s a tiny minority of users who pay directly to MS for a windows license. Even businesses prefer the computer to come preinstalled with the OS.

No, you don’t get a cheaper computer if windows is cheaper in your country, final numbers are decided at the accounting level, not the point of sale. But, if they don’t have to pay MS anything, they can offer a cheaper laptop for you, the end user.

I’m not ranting. I just stated something I did, and I am in full right to do. It’s my feed. I don’t have to see or interact with someone I don’t want to. And you lot are not helping. In mental health crisis social networks are a liability, not an asset. You’re a bunch of hypocrites who extracted entertainment from someone’s else struggling then want to claim moral superiority because I was rude. They needed IRL support, not a bunch of randos from the internet prying in their private life for emotional leeching.

Setting healthy boundaries is always perceived as rude by those unaware of the trespassing, yes. I like the quiet, I prefer the quiet.

No, because I blocked them.

Downvote away if you want. But they had became a nuisance in the comment sections. My feed is extremely peaceful and less toxic ever since I can’t read their replies.

They already did all the incluing exposition they could. Only infodumping was left to do (the examples I gave). They actually did infodump at the intro of the first movie. They could’ve cut more plot points. But people would’ve complained it wasn’t loyal to the book even more, as they did at the time. Unless you turn it into a dozens of episodes over 9 seasons series, you won’t have time to convey the passing of time. Then you run the risk of it being boring. What we got was already a miracle. Look at what they did with The Hobbit, they butchered it for exposition.

Narration is boring. Montages have the potential to overstay their welcome. Exposition in dialogue is dumb. There’s already so much going on in the movies that adding more set pieces would actually generate the opposite effect. Busy movies feel like they rush and a lot happens in a short span of time (think what if tom bombadil). The only way was to actually cut more stuff to focus even more narrowly on fewer plot points, to gain time where to insert set pieces that illustrated the time passing, with slower pace. When a movie has very few things going on in a long time span, it feels like it’s illustrating a very long span of time. This is a balancing act that all screenwriters and directors have to face. For example, look at interstellar vs. Castaway, which one objectively is about a longer period time, which one actually leaves you feeling like the characters experienced a lot of time?

If they are equivalent to the deer physiognomy, this will only be an issue during rut season. As they will shed the antlers and won’t have them for most of the rest of the year.

It gives you the right picture when you asked for a single straight track on the prompt. Now you have to spend 10 hours debugging code and fixing hallucinations of functions that don’t exist on libraries it doesn’t even neet to import.

I’m not attacking your experience. Good for you, keep enjoying it. I’m just saying that it is not universally good for everyone, it would do us all good to avoid erasing other’s experiences or invalidating their emotions.

I also didn’t say it is creepy to see what your friends post. I’m saying that it is creepy that Facebook gets to see everything you do in your personal life. Remember that meta trains AI on what you post. At least with messaging you can use end to end encryption if you want to.

Maybe it’s just me, but that always struck me as a theater of connection, not actual connection. I know all my friends kids, even those who live abroad. Not because of an internet social network, but because we actually talk to each other on the regular, and share pictures and video calls, directly, personally. Not informally and creepily through a capricious algorithm. My good wishes to my friends and family on special occasions go directly to them, we don’t need a middle man to choose when and where they are going to see those things, and I don’t need to perform connection for people I barely talk to. Remember that the flip side of the coin is that social networks cause isolation by making all interactions feel impersonal and distant. Facebook literally caused a loneliness crisis amongst young people, who felt compelled to compete for attention and approval, distorting their expectations, altering their sense of self-worth, exposing them to abuse. Internet social networks have a very dark side.

From kids perspectives it is different. For young people anyone over 25 is old, solidly adult, not “with it”, washed, etc. Contrasts that with almost 70% of tiktok users are under 24, with over 50% of creators in the 18 to 24 range. That’s solidly a young people social network. Facebook is in comparison made of old people. Most young people who engage with Meta do so through Instagram, and have a Facebook account because IG nags them to create one. But they aren’t going there or spending any significant amount of time engaging with Facebook itself. Facebook follows the global age distribution more closely, but users and active users engaging are entirely different things.

Linux Foundation survives on Microsoft’s financing. Firefox main source of income is Google’s money. That’s like pointing out that we breathe nitrogen. Yes, it is almost impossible to avoid capitalism because we live immersed in it as a society. But it’s not an reason to stop pointing it out and trying to find more ethical and sustainable alternatives.

Is this about grey’s anatomy?