reddit fucking destroyed the plex share community.
For what it's worth, it's very easy to accomplish that automation you're looking for. All you want is your server to have your VPN set up to your torrenting client (don't want any leaks!), then there are programs referred to as the arrs which you simply type {name of media} and it pulls from a list of your needs (for example, pull 1080p, ignore below it) and sorts it for you (for example, push 4k to a separate library). And that's it for you, as from there it's naming what you want and your setup all does the rest.
As for f&fam, Overseer or Omni something. It's a request space they can use and it's automated so you don't have to worry about it.
So if your family can download an app/navigate to a page and type in what they want and be okay with sometimes waiting 30 minutes I think it is a pretty user friendly solution. I also think spending wise over time it does even out. A yearly sub to various steaming services themselves, just 3 for 1 year is already the cost of more than enough storage. Granted, paid options like Usenet or what you guys are talking about are a fair amount cheaper but then you're also still relying on and paying other services.
I think you're looking for a website like civitai
I'd expect it to be removed soon, since it's been done before
Man, it just keeps getting better and better.
From my understanding it has only been rolled out to Chrome users so far. Anyone using adblocks with Firefox will not have seen these yet.
However to ensure you don't, I suggest beginning your transition to some of the alternatives. I have been migrating to Piped which is essentially a scraper.
For what it's worth I've read that most torrenting hosts will be adding support for it (at least qbit has said)
Of course, but what I'm saying is that there's a range. Charlie is within the range that just "feels right" regardless of whether it's a pet or not. Stephanie is kind of outside of that range, IMO along with quite a few other names. I'm not saying they shouldn't be named that, or that all animals with that name are just "wrong" lol that's crazy. Do you think you'd agree that John is a less fitting name for a dog than Trevor? Or that Huey, Huell, Hubert are all more fitting for a pet than Jane or Carl?
I dunno, clearly people feel both ways about it in this thread lol. I'm not saying that all pets should be named Mr. Fluffybunbuns, just that some human names don't really seem super fitting for animals - be it a personality, how the name sounds when they're being called.
I mean, this isn't limited to animals either. Surely you've met someone who is clearly a David but for some reason their name is Joseph. But they just exude David energy? This is like the opposite of that, where the animal just exudes an energy that simply isn't the name they were given.
Oh, I have another example. My rescue dogs name was Ashley. She did look very pretty like an Ashley, but she was very much not an Ashley.
Normal human names are weird for pets.
Hubert for a dog? Sounds pretty good. John, for a dog? Umm...
And that right there is your fallacy. Eating an animal isn't inherently evil or bad, not any more so than raising chickens for their eggs and eventual meat. I'm sure it could be, but I would argue that first and foremost disrespecting the animal is. There's nothing wrong with eating plants, but if you step on the lettuce and carrots you're wasting food. It was raised just like the lamb was, and yet the lamb was turned into a beautiful lamb au vin, whereas the lettuce and carrots were turned to mush.
For what it's worth, I only mostly disagree with you. I wouldn't have written something so long because I disagree with you entirely, and I think I try to be fair about moderation and what is unreasonable in my points. I 100% agree that there are issues with meat in our society and that factory farming is disrespectful to the animal and it as a human construction is evil, particularly in the U.S. more so than other countries. But it's also a necessity for people's survival because we are poor. Meat in moderation is not any worse for you than vegetables in moderation, factory farming is bad for the environment but that doesn't mean that all farming is, nor do innocent animals have to be "murdered" in order for someone to enjoy meat. There are more options than just animals now, we're living in a crazy world.
So is driving. Vegetables are bad for you too, they quite literally have built defenses to prevent being eaten and we still eat them. To much and they're actually legitimately bad for us. Plants also make connections and trees use mycelial networks to communicate and are able to tell apart individual trees, are able to hear distress calls and can respond and even send nutrients to that specific tree.
Animal consciousness is hardly known and people use that as a metric for plants when they've been around for much longer. Just because we don't understand something and have yet to uncover how it works doesn't mean it isn't happening on a daily basis.
And yet you know what? I'm here today because I have survived life by consuming other plants and animals. I have lived my life doing good deeds and done my best to help those around me, working for non-profit performing arts and events. I rescued a dog whose owners were just going to abandon her in the woods with a bag of food, and she lives a happy life now giving me snuggles every morning. And if continuing that means I get to enjoy bacon and beef in a moderate omnivorous way, that's what life and being human is. If I starve or deprive myself of the series of joys that help keep me positive and the cost of that is an animal that feeds multiple people like myself then that is a worthy sacrifice for the animal. The fact that vegans have such a high risk of nutrient deficiencies is pretty telling as to how we use multiple sources to collect what we need. Also the fact that like, a majority of the animals on the planet are omnivorous. Deer will eat chicks. Happily.
I don't agree with factory farming. I don't agree with wood harvesting (it's pretty devastating to the ecosystems in Oregon that have had these forests for hundreds of years before settlers started clearings). I don't agree with driving. And yet, I recognize that all of these are byproducts of what society has deemed as necessary. I don't agree with factory farming, but hundreds of thousands more people would be starving without it - local farms just cannot take the meat demand nor the crop demand when meat inevitably falls and plant consumption rises. This is why it's good to look into full spectrum reduction. People using local farms more, sometimes supplementing lab-grown and vegetarian options to reduce factory farming in hopes to minimize its need as much as possible. I don't agree with wood harvesting, but hundreds of thousands of people would be without shelter, fire, and transportation maintenance (mostly for railways, already something that is greatly suffering). I don't agree with driving, but I recognize that as a result of our work culture it is essentially a necessity again because without me getting to my job I do not survive. Personally, I don't have my drivers license and mostly bus and walk. I think we should be looking into road grids, alternative tires, and pushing more for automated driving. The overall cost of energy can be supplemented and is less toxic than 200 million tires a year wearing rubber into the air. Bonus: automated grids also would reduce gas consumption. Of course, lobbyists exist and that's why this is a pipe dream.
Hopefully you see my point in this. You can do everything in your power to control what you want, but we can only control how we help the people around us. Being condescending about the omnivorous human eating meat is a net negative to the world because you are only pushing people away from being in the reductive mindset, while simultaneously missing the mindset of who you're trying to make a point to. People who eat meat either genuinely do not believe they have certain capacities and that makes it ok. Again, what you say is not effective to these people. The other people are people who do believe that animals have more capacities than we realize, and still make the choice for a variety of reasons. It could be food aversions and meat is their primary thing. It could be something related to what I've already explained. It could even be that there are people who have the capacity to eat something they love. Something that humans have historically done. Cattle made you rich, you wanted those cows alive and you love those cows. And yet, when it's that cows time because you and your family are hungry and need to sell its meat. The only difference between an animal and a plant is that you're the one humanizing only the animal - apparently plants don't make the cut for your respect? Cause you are just as much of a murderer as the rest of us in that regard.
You don't need ratios for any of this. And the hardware is just the cost of what you pay a subscription to?
What you described in the second paragraph is much more work than just setting up Sonarr.
And 1tb will go by too quickly. You want sales on hard drives that you can shuck if you're trying to be cheap and reliable. $100 for 10tb or so. It sounds like you're overthinking and over complicating it. You say the storage and shit is expensive but it's literally cheaper to get an Intel Quicksync PC for $45 and $50 for a 5tb drive. For less than $100 and plugging in 2 cables to the hard drive!
If you use it for a 9 months it pays for itself.