golli @ golli @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

301

Joined

2 yr. ago

Add the update policy to the cons. 2 major versions and 3 years of security updates is just bad, especially for a device of this price range

Perfectly understandable imo. Reddit has been around for ages and has a huge backlog of information that users aggregated. Can't really expect Lemmy to match that after only (somewhat) taking off not that long ago. And i won't fault anyone for using this accumulated knowledge, i can't quite avoid it myself.

For me the big question is where people contribute new things. And considering how reddit is behaving, Lemmy/the Fediverse is the far better place to do so.

If I remember correctly here in German it was marketed as "Dredd 3D", which turned me off at the time.

Somewhat late reply, since i didn't have the time to start my conversion to OMV sooner. Definitely looks nice and installation was easy.

You are spot on that my first issue has partially to do with permissions. Following a guide at the time i structured my media library to some level with data sets in my zfs pool on truenas scale. But those apparently are more like filesystems rather than just directories. Which makes the whole giving permissions for my dockeruser a bit difficult (and also otherwise seems a bit less then ideal for OMV).

So since i wanted to structure it slightly different i made a new shared folder on my zfs pool and directories for my media in there and moved a few test files. Downside now is that this solution would mean that i have to move a ton of files, which would mean a ton of writes to my drives.

Apparently they changed that in one of the recent updates, but so far i really like the setup with docker compose. So much easier than the whole deal with applications in truenas scale. Copy+Paste stuff into a file, change some variables and a full stack of media applications is up and running so fast.

Currently doing some digging. Seems like there is a plugin (sharerootfs) that solves the problem that you'd waste so much space when installing ovm on a ssd.

If I remember correctly, OMV takes the whole drive for the OS as well.

I'll take a look into that. I know that there are benefits to that approach, but i have a limited number of slots for drives and i'd rather not use a full SSD just for the OS. I'd ideally also run some applications on the same drive.

I love the ability to really experiment with pretty much anything without impacting the services already running

I'll probably do my experimenting somewhere else and just keep the NAS as simple as possible

Thanks for such a fast and thoughtful reply.

I'll go ahead then and try out OVM, it's not like i'd be stuck with it forever anyways :)

They could, but presumably they want to make business and sell their products in countries that do have those copyright protections or to other companies from there.

I didn't say that it takes away all advantages. And I am definitely with you that overall it is a net positive for the consumer and there is a market.

But this limited update policy puts an unnecessary timer on the useful lifetime of the device. And while eventually it will need replacement, a repairable device like this has the expectation to last significantly longer than 3 years.

Say the phone would otherwise be good to use for 6 years with repairs like a battery swap. At that point it would have gone 2/3 of his lifetime without major software update and 1/2 without security updates.

Unless ofc it would be flashed with a different OS, but that goes against the ease of repairability it is going for.

That's definitely an option. But to me that is somewhat of the equivalent to an easily removable battery vs having to fight through a bunch of glue first.

Yes you can definitely do it, but it just makes things less accessible.

I can't seem to find an answer for this particular phone, but they usually seem to only provide 2 major android versions and another year of security updates.

To me that kind of defeats many of the upsides this repairability provides.

If you are interested there are essentially 3 problems:

• the GPU fiasco: Where they didn't just bork a install. A small 2 man startup send them their (I think only or at least best) prototype for testing and even included the correct GPU to use it with in their packet. LTT for some reason tested it on a different one (obviously not working well there) and came to the devastating conclusion that NOBODY should ever buy this. Then instead of as requested sending it back they auctioned this prototype off at an event they hosted.
• the second problem that was also called out in the video published by gamers Nexus was a consistent pattern of publishing data errors in their reviews. And if such errors are caught, they would be inadequately handled. Maybe through a post under the video or by later replacing part of the video. If they caught an error before publishing they also often would just add a small onscreen text correction with an * instead of redoing that part. All problematic as many people will miss those corrections and thus be influenced by wrong data.

Those two points are especially problematic given the reach of LTT, since they are by far the largest tech YouTube channel. And thus influence a lot of people, especially beginners. Their initial response to these problems was also extremely bad.

• the third problem was a former employee coming forward with allegations of them being an extremely toxic place to work at. With sexual harassment, intense workload and so on.

Lewy.world is a instance that only federates with other instances that are only nsfw content (like lemmynsfw.com). So I guess you'll want to avoid checking that out (or use it to learn what to avoid)

Glad it was at least somewhat helpful. This is such a vast topic that it simply can't all fit into a discussion like this and there'll always be inaccuracies or mistakes. So there are certainly plenty of those in my reasoning. You are also making a good point about discrimination being a root issue in some of my examples.

Why is people’s first instinct here to hide instead of work to fight discrimination?

I see advocating for privacy not as "hiding", but in fact as one way to fight. And in many ways as one of the most effective. How can you discriminate against something you have no information about? To me it seems unrealistic to eliminate biases as a whole. Especially because many (arguably most) decisions are so complex that filtering out individual aspects is more or less impossible, and we can't know a persons thoughts (some they might not even be conscious about themself).

I believe we’ve come a long way, and only because people’s weaknesses were laid out in the open and they fought to be able to live the way they are

And i would argue that to do so privacy was needed. A whistleblower or journalist needs privacy as a form of protection. And those movements fighting for a good cause most of the time will not have started in the open. Instead there will likely have been a phase where people met in private to organize, discuss and share. A lack of privacy here would have probably benefited the stronger oppresive side.

As for the AfD scenario: what good does having privacy now have, if their first move can be to just forbid privacy?

The benefit is that they can (at least partially) only have access moving forward, privacy now is a shield against change in circumstances. And as mentioned once privacy on certain things is lost it can not be restored. Right now it might not be an issue to be associated with a certain person or ideology, but things can change (and we might not know how in advance).

In short, I think a lack of privacy is only bad in combination with the evil intent of people wanting to abuse others’ weaknesses. We should try to fight the evil instead of clinging to privacy in the digital era (which I believe will be impossible within the next decade or so anyway)

I think this is a very idealisitc view and i disagree with your view that keeping at least some form of privacy is impossible. I do think there is an inherent value to privacy, but at least it is a valid tool to fight those malicious actors. And while it certainly cuts both ways and can also be abused, i wouldn't want to give it up because of that.

[...] so we can have the advantages of more data-driven tech advancements while minimizing the negative consequences of a loss of privacy. I think we can have our cake and eat it too.

That i agree with, but in the exact opposite way. I believe that we can have digitalisation AND keep privacy as a default.

Yes in some areas we might weigh up the pros and cons, and decide that something else takes priority. But the important part for me here is the direction and the hieracy of those arguments. Because there are many benefits privacy provides (some of which i've tried to explain), i want that there to be good arguments if we decide to remove it. So convenience for example should not trump privacy.

As a side note and another example:

Anonymity (such as we have here in on this forum) can help with freedom of thought and growth. If everything i do can be directly tied to me, i might be much more conservative and careful about what i write. This ofc is something that cuts both ways and leads to harrassment, but it can also lead to safely exploring new things and growth. I don't know about you, but for me there is value in having such a space as this to discuss things. If we were e.g. on Facebook it would definitely influence me.

I'll try to make a case for why you should care about privacy aswell:

First of all there are some aspects where privacy is simply a requirement for things to work. For example there is a lot of talk about banning end-to-end encryption, but things like banking or remote work rely on this. Even if you wouldn't care about someone else having the opportunity to read your personal messages, if those aren't encrypted you are opening the gates for malicious actors.

I care about consent and freedom of choice

For me in a lot of aspects you simply can't have "freedom of choice" or "consent" without the default being privacy.

Take for example medical records: those aren't just relevant for you, but also anyone you are related to. At somepoint insurance might factor in medical history in their rates. You might not care about your record being public, but if you e.g. carry some genetic predisposition for a disease that will also have consequences for your child or sibling.

If the default for privacy is "opt-in", then in many cases this will have a negative affect on people who do want it. Want to rent an appartment and the finances of most people are public? Well tough luck. Guess you have to decide, if you give up that privacy or keep searching. Because surely you have something terrible to hide otherwise you wouldn't want privacy. Not much of a fair choice.

For a lot of things once the genie is out of the bottle you can't reverse it. Extreme case: a far right party like the AfD comes into power. Suddenly you might get targeted for certain information that is available about you. And you can't also easily hide it for future things, because that sudden shift might make you suspicious.

I think there are a lot of cases where most people might not care about their privacy. But those that do need it are reliant on the default being privacy and most people having it. Because otherwise it does not work. Then you just have "those that have nothing to hide" and "those that clearly have that particular thing to hide, because otherwise they wouldn't chose privacy".

Another aspect is targeted advertisement. Despite whatever you think, even if you know how it works, it'll have an affect on you. Whether you like it or not. Human beings can't be perfectly rational and psychology will have an affect.

Besides that a lot of efforts to dismantle privacy will just lead to average people losing it, while e.g. criminals will still use it. Privacy is also highly important for things like journalism or whistleblowers, something you are also profiting from.

I’m saying this because it feels like Germany is 10y behind other countries in digitization solely because regulators think I’m too stupid to give me the agency to opt in to sell my soul to our digital overlords.

This i disagree with, we certainly aren't SOLELY behind in digitalization because of privacy concerns. Most of the time it's just incompetence or bad implementations (often time coupled with some corruption and lobbying).

These are just some random thoughts and far from exhaustive (probably also not perfect arguments)

Yeah that seems really weird. $100 is so little money that you might as well hold onto it even if it were indeed worthless.

That would only make sense if there was something external forcing the sale or some kind of liability that you could escape through selling. And I can't see either applying here

To name a smaller movie and not one of the blockbusters already mentioned: the artifice girl. Great smaller scale sci-fi movie.

For me it depends on what we define as "theater experience":

I absolutely never care about the rest of the audience (unless they'd be actively annoying). The Part where it forces me to pay attention is the biggest draw. And the technical aspect (better/larger screens) only matters for certain movies ever since i got a decent sized oled tv. So i'd go see Oppenheimer if there were an IMAX cinema in my area (which sadly isnt the case) or i went to see Avatar 2 last christmas, because i think there the technical aspects matter more. There i went to see it on a large screen, whereas otherwise i often choose smaller independent cinemas, whenever i go. Next one is probably gonna be "Past Lives".

A membership sounds nice, but i feel like i wouldn't have enough movies i truly want to see to justify one. Also i think the one that's available in my city that i know of would be 20€/month, but not truly unlimited but 8 tickets/month (but i guess that is still plenty to see everything).

For me it might actually be the other way around. Being in the cinema forces me to pay better attention, which especially for a long movie can be helpful. And imo there is no "too long" in absolute terms, what matters is whether the movie requires the time or if there is a lot of padding that could have been cut.

Havent gone to see Oppenheimer, but for example when it was released i went to see "Drive my Car" (179 minutes long and subtitled) in the cinema. I've since also watched it at home, but i am glad i went to the cinema on my first watch. It's my own flault, but i am not sure if i would have had the same focus and attention when watching it at home or if i'd at some point would have gotten distracted by something.

interstellar shout

Seems like they haven't read the "remembrance of Earth's past" trilogy, otherwise they might have known better than to shout into the universe