dillydogg

I'd like to ask a clarifying question.

I'm interested in building a computer to self host from that would exclusively run on my local network. I would like to have some storage (on the order of 2x 16TB HDDs in RAID1 or 3x in RAID5) but also have the ability to host some other services, like Nextcloud, Arr stack, RSS feed, Immich for photos, and a Joplin server. I would probably put Wireguard on there to access these services remotely (but not the *arr stack).

Someday I might want to host some services that are accessible from the internet (not Wireguard), but I think that is for another time in my life.

I am gathering from your comments that, for more than strictly local storage, it is probably worth building a server with storage, rather than trying to stretch a Synology NAS to do all of this for me. Does that sound right?

I've been toying with this idea for a while and am not sure if I sound just go with a Synology or self build. But I think I have more interest in tinkering with the system than a Synology would allow. I'm not totally new to self hosting, I have a VPS that serves a few apps and my blog online, and use an RPi at home to serve a few things. I suppose a third option is to buy the NAS, but then build a computer to host the other applications using the NAS data.

I think your problem is that you think Republicans care about being logically consistent with their interpretation of the law. I think it's clear that they take the outcome they want, and then work their way backwards.

I'm a big fan of the weather app wX for US people. It is a no-frills NWS data explorer, with a great radar and widget. It doesn't have the look of a modern app, persay, but the data are all there and very clear. (To get to the meteogram, long press on the radar widget on the home screen. I found this by accident, but am very happy I did.)

Dyson is a marketing company that happens to make okay vacuums. Anyone who owns a Miele or SEBO vacuum would never go to a Dyson. Dyson vacuums never hold up to their high quality bagged competitors in almost any regard. Just my 2c. I used my family's Dyson before moving out and buying a canister SEBO and the difference is remarkable. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-we-learned-from-vacuum-enthusiasts/

Nothing can beat the baseball stat TOOTBLAN

Thrown Out On The Basepaths Like A Nincompoop

I think that one is the only logo with any soul to it. The rest are so flat! I like the old opensuse logo, but I get that it doesn't fit with the rest.

I always thought pemdas was more like P/E/MD/AS with MD and AS occurring left to right

Honestly? Fair point. I find it hard to not extend this to animals but it most likely isn't something animals consider at all. I mean, dogs likely all have William's Syndrome, so they are happy with how we treat them in most scenarios. But owning animals I think leads to a lot of secondary animal cruelty caused by breeders and abandoned pets.

Part of how I think about this is that the demand people have for owning animals creates the demand for breeders to make them. Simply not wanting pets would doom less to this fate.

Of course, this perspective is too reductive to capture what's really going on in reality. But I suspect it could prevent a good bit of animal harm.

Well, do they own the animals or not? I think ownership of other animals is part of my core issue.

Owning the animals, then calling it another name is worse in my view. Especially animal friends, I think owning another living thing but calling it your friend is the foundation of a unhealthy relationship. You purchased the animal. I do not have friendships that begin with buying them.

Sure, but I still think "well it evolved this way" doesn't make something moral. A simple counterargument is that approach shouldn't allow vaccines or clean water because we we didn't evolve in the context of those things. I know this isn't the argument you are trying to make, but I think the context in which we evolved to have a relationship with dogs is not beyond scrutiny in contemporary times. I think we have an extensive history with our pets, but the benefits of that relationship are no longer present, (except for the pets which do find success is passing on their genes, though that is mostly controlled). There may be a case that owning pets allows people to be more successful in reproducing but I do not think it is a requirement.

Most people I know pick the dog they want to own based on how it looks. So it is an aesthetic decision that determines the life of the animal. I think this is where a lot of my issue with pet ownership derives. In a very trite way, the relationship is "this dog looks very cute, I want to own it". Then this relationship is extended in a way to try to make it akin to a friendship. It is a different kind of relationship and ought to be treated as such. If someone tried to be friends with someone that they owned, I would find it disturbing.

I know I'm in an extreme minority here but I think that's what the post was looking for!

I thought this thread was for hot takes 😉