avidamoeba
@[email protected] 's post containing the accounts to follow:
https://flipboard.social/@mike/111602382232229349
It should be possible to get integration for these to show up in Lemmy, instead of having to crosspost everything.
Which keyboard are you talking about? Gboard is as good as it's ever been for me personally.
It's been pretty good here for a couple of months. The ability to rank up/down, block/pin sources is a really good feature. When it fails, there's always !g.
Don't know about innovative but disruption definitely is.
Soon SSD-based RAIDz1.
Or even USB 3+, should that be cheaper.
Perhaps running a mirror or a stripe array would be more important than selecting drives that don't fail. Then you can pick whatever that's not complete garbage. That said, it would likely still be more expensive overall.
Because the overhead is practically none, barring the extra disk space. Maybe it's not worth using it for Samba and Transmission. But involve OpenVPN for Transmission in the mix and things get a lot more complicated if Samba has to keep serving LAN and Transmission has to stop whenever OpenVPN stops. If instead you grab this, the problem is solved by writing one 20-line docker-compose.yml and doing docker-compose up -d:
version: '3.3'
services:
transmission-openvpn:
cap_add:
- NET_ADMIN
volumes:
- '/your/storage/path/:/data'
- '/your/config/path/:/config'
environment:
- OPENVPN_PROVIDER=PIA
- OPENVPN_CONFIG=france
- OPENVPN_USERNAME=user
- OPENVPN_PASSWORD=pass
- LOCAL_NETWORK=192.168.0.0/16
logging:
driver: json-file
options:
max-size: 10m
ports:
- '9091:9091'
restart: on-failure
image: haugene/transmission-openvpn
A benefit of Docker's that helps even with a single-service deployment is the the packaging side. It allows for running near-arbitrary service versions on top of your host OS, stale, stable, bleeding edge or anything in-between.
Why would you try avoiding it if you understand how it works? It has so many upsides and so few downsides. About the only practical one is using more disk space. It was groundbreaking technology in 2013. Today it's an old and essential tool.
The fundamental problem I have identified over the years I worked adjacent to this project is this. Most folks above the manager position are not technical. They're typically some sort of BA. These kinds of folks do not easily comprehend the technical merits of different solutions. All sorts of errors stem from that. Errors in estimating risk, errors in estimating difficulty, but crucially errors in telling reality from fantasy, or truth from lies. Under this framework, the ability of the organization to hire technical people who know what they're doing is more or less based on luck. This particular org struck luck with some hires and didn't with most. So now we have a group of people who will build this thing, with only a few qualified people among the unqualified. Alright. A difficult design decision has to be made. There are two proposals. One from a qualified person. Another from an unqualified one. They're both presented to a director or a VP for a final decision. The qualified person presents their design, pros, cons, etc. The unqualified one does the same, except they have an ace up their sleeve - confident lies. So they sprinkle those all around their design - everything is amazing, few cons if any, unicorns shitting rainbows and the lot. The decision maker cannot discern the lies from the truth. The unicorn design feels irresistible. It's chosen. Its designer is promoted before its ill effects are ever realized. Now the competent folk don't even get to present alternatives to the VP level. Eventually they're tired of this shit and move to a place that is less corrupted.
This wasn't confined to one project and a single set of people. It's a general problem that transcends orgs and companies.
Sadly, often when you appear to have choices, you still don't have a choice. The type of competition that practically benefits users rarely exists and profit-maximizing businesses actively work to reduce or eliminate it. In the long run competition in a market disappears via consolidation - the act of the winners acquiring the losers. And so you end up dealing with one or several companies, whether you trust them or not.
With that said, the author of the article is obviously out of their mind or an active Google shill.