Truenas (linux) has been like that for me. Repurposed my last pc, added a pci-e sas/sata card, add 8 hdd's. Installed it 2 years ago and its been auto updating and i have been hardly having to deal with it, at most an hour a month to check the status and maybe add or remove some docker container stuff thats running on there.
Depending on what you build and how you build it you're going to have a large range of experiences.
Do you need just disks in a raid? Look at it once a month to make sure nothing stupid has happened and go on with your life. Do you want to run a bunch of services (arr stack, home assistant, full on home lab type stuff) then yes it may require some more "work" depending on what your running and how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.
There’s no need to proactively check in on anything if you’ve set up email alerts. It’s pretty straightforward to give the NAS permission to send you emails in case a drive dies on you rather than failing silently.
Docker containers are just a nice bonus. You don’t need to use them if you don’t want to, but it is awfully convenient to run things like media encoders, torrent clients, download managers, etc. directly on your storage.
Did something similar, but just used Debian stable and Samba. Rock stable without intervention other than an occasional login to update. My fileshare needs are simple (single user), so that might be a reason to not choose this. The nice thing is that since it's Debian you _can_ do more if you wish, at any time.
There's a new fork of barrier called input leap (not to be confused with the leap motion), https://github.com/input-leap/input-leap with work on getting Wayland support in shape. Not sure how far the support is atm, but the gnome 45 release notes mentioned "Wayland support for Input Leap" (https://release.gnome.org/45/)
I think the trick is keep generating the code from your configuration on regular basis, if not every build. Is what we used to do with generating code for our front-end based on entities in Java decade ago. With enough test coverage for testing correctness.
The new Casio DW-H5600 has solar charging and amazingly long battery life. I was pretty anti-smartwatch but i like g-shock squares and ended up getting it been surprisingly good.
I bought one of these for the solar charging, great battery life. And that works. But it is really hard to read the LCD. The automatic lightning works quite unreliably, and even when it works the tiny screen is hard to read. At least with my old man eyes.
The latest casio lcd screens are amazing in terms of readability. They don't have the digits shadow problem anymore (this was especially plaguing the negative displays). It's really night and day.
So rich people who can afford their accountant fees to hide their income, like with taxes, will pay almost nothing for energy, while the essentially broke person will pay more.
What percentage of the population do you believe is both rich and hires accountants to hide all of their income? What percentage of people serviced by PG&E do you think fall into that category? From my perspective you're referring to a number of people that I could count on one hand. Do you think it's some significant portion of the population?
Presume that everyone making above, say, $1 million per year isn't taking all their income as W2 income. How much this counts as "hiding" income is up to you to decide, but generally W2 is considered "normal people" income, 1099 "contractor people" income (whether that's a plumber who owns their own business, or an Uber driver), and 1099-DIV and 1099-INT and related are rich people incomes.
If we further assume big tech companies have 5 CxO (CEO, CFO, CTO, COO, CISO, CMO; pick 5), and that there are more than 1 big tech companies headquartered in California. If we assume those officers make large incomes that aren't W2 incomes, that they live in California, and, further, live in areas serviced by PG&E (which, statistically speaking is basically all of them), and then count individuals based on the fraction of income "hidden" as non-W2 income, and sum them up, then that number is surely greater than 5.
Not a statically significant portion of the 17M employed Californians mind you, but more than 5.
The “rich people who can afford accountants” in this case are going to be middle income families, and I’m not even talking about household income of more than 100k. Only the bottom 30% will see savings, which you’ll realize is not a big threshold.
Another problem I see is that by reducing the per-unit costs and shifting it back to a flat grid connection fee, they are reducing the incentive to save energy. Is this really going to bring the future we want?
I honestly think it is a mistake to allow grandfathered NEM rate structures to continue, if these other wacky plans are really attempting to compensate for that imbalance.
Maybe we need better than the NEM 3 proposal, to actually charge based on your grid connection size and usage. Something based on peak and actual power transfers as they reflect proportionate reliance on the grid infrastructure.That would be in addition to any actual energy consumption which I think should also follow the NEM 3 plan with retail rates for consumption and wholesale rates for production that vary by time of delivery.
We had a local amazon competitor that opened up its store to chinese sellers too, and it shows. Basically the same garbage fake products end up on searches for brand name products. I don't get why the real stores using them for selling next to their own still do? Also the main company skirts liability and returns and acts like its not their problem.
There is no such thing as ethical ad. Why would anyone leave money on the table and not do scummy / google / facebook ads. Not like anything is stopping them unless the ad industry gets killed by law.
> Why would anyone leave money on the table and not do scummy / google / facebook ads
If ethical ads do a better job of reaching developers, you would be leaving money on the table by not using them.
Supply and demand applies, as usual. Companies selling dev services want more effective ad campaigns, ethical ads are less likely to be blocked/ignored by their target demographic, thus demand for ethical ads goes up. The supply of websites/apps running ethical ads is relatively low, so that means the payouts of those ads are higher.
So in the end, running ethical ads on your dev-oriented website could make more money than google/facebook ads, advertisers could get more return on their investment, and end-users benefit from ethical and less-intrusive advertising (although that might not last forever once the MBAs are brought in to chase growth)
It sounds like we have a very different idea of what "ethical" means. In answer to your question about "what's stopping them?" - well, just that: ethics, morals, the desire to act decently even when there might be some additional benefit to being sleazy.
Waiting for a law to prohibit immoral behavior doesn't seem like a sustainable way for a society to function, even though it does seem to be the way we're trending.
>It sounds like we have a very different idea of what "ethical" means. In answer to your question about "what's stopping them?" - well, just that: ethics, morals, the desire to act decently even when there might be some additional benefit to being sleazy
for some private companies, sure. but the second a company goes public, all of this completely goes out of the window. the only time a publicly traded company acts ethically is when it thinks its public image (read: stock price) will be harmed by acting otherwise
>Waiting for a law to prohibit immoral behavior doesn't seem like a sustainable way for a society to function, even though it does seem to be the way we're trending
as far as I've seen - i.e. the rise and dominance of free-market economics - we're trending and have been trending since the 70s, in the opposite direction.
creating laws to prohibit harmful behaviour isn't some kind of crazy unsustainable new invention, it is just the basis of how societies maintain themselves. it's convenient for corporations (read: groups of resourceful people that will do anything they think they can get away with to take your money) to act like rules for them are a bad thing, but they are not, and short of implementing actual communism, they will continue to find ways to make profit. and if they don't? well should they have been making profit from harming society in the first place?
I definitely appreciate the negative view of ads. I had some similar internal conflict around building on ads, but it was the only way for us to sustain the project we worked on..
Read the Docs was a huge part of the open source community, but all the other ways we tried to fund it didn't work. I posted about this at the time, and still think it makes a good argument for why we should be investing to fund open source infrastructure with marketing money, not just engineering budget:
We are also experimenting with an option for showing sponsorships, instead of paid ads. This works well for non-profits, and could layer on top of Open Collective or GitHub Sponsors. We're working with the Python Software Foundation to power their "sponsored by" messaging, which is another option other than "paid ads"
If the ads didn’t change what you showed based on the price and instead charged a fixed price ti be in the list (and still be ranked by what’s best) then I think you can call it ethical.
That is to say, helping people find the best product is ethical. Helping them find whichever product has the biggest marketing budget less so.
I agree that there is no such thing as an ethical ad, but not for this reason. an advert in and of itself is an outside actor trying to implant information in your head, by and large without your consent, by and large using manipulative psychological techniques. this, to me, is unethical
> I agree that there is no such thing as an ethical ad
Are you saying an ethical ad is possible, but it has never existed to this day? Or that it’s impossible to ever make an ad ethical?
It seems that using your definition of an advert, an ad can theoretically be made ethical by addressing the issue of consent and psychological manipulation. But it’s probably not practical.
Studies show that non-tracking ads pull in 96% as much revenue per impression as tracker-based ads.
Is the 4% boost really worth chasing away users, adding cookie popups, etc? Also, it's possible for users to unblock non-tracking ad networks. If 4% of your audience does that, then you end up making more from them.
Finally, with ads that target content, any extra revenue due to premium audiences goes to the content publisher. For ads that target end users, the premium goes to the ad network.
If you're placing user-targeted ads on anything but bottom-tier content, then you are squandering your monopoly access to your readership. That's why this ad network specializes in just developer sites -- some advertisers will pay a premium to reach developers. Others will pay a premium simply to avoid being displayed next to toenail fungus and celebrity wardrobe failures.
Because in my first hand experience in ad tech and running an ad-monitized site, the net effect is that CPMs on Safari and Firefox (no 3rd party cookies) are about 60-80% lower than that of Chrome and Edge.
The quality of ethical vs non-ethical is not a binary state, it's a transient descriptor. That which was not evil will either fail or grow large enough to become evil. There are no known exceptions to this.
Your also missing the ads in podcast content too. Its the curse that youtube now has as well. You pay for advert free content yet its embedded in the content anyway.
In the past I've had some success with the SponsorBlock extension [1] available for Chrome, Firefox, iOS/Android, etc. It's a crowd-sourced list of videos and timestamps of sponsor shoutouts, and it will skip the video ahead past the ad for you. It implements some methods to keep your privacy so you're not just uploading a list of every watched video to their servers.
It's not perfect, being crowd-sourced it won't have brand-new videos in its database. It would be interesting to see if some ML/algorithm could buffer your video and detect the ad and skip it.
By its design it cannot be perfect. You are getting lucky that someone else with SponsorBlock watched the video before you and recorded the timestamp in the database.
I'm honestly surprised Spotify and YouTube haven't come down on "sponsored" content - they're the platform, if you want to advertise on the platform, you're supposed to go through them, and they distribute some of it back to the content providers. (Love it or hate it, that is the business model).
SmartTubeNext (ShieldTV, FireTv, any android tv), SponsorBlock (ios, firefox, chrome, etc.) - basically whatever client that makes use of https://sponsor.ajay.app/
It’s a crowd sourced database of timecodes for videos on YouTube that categorises segments so you can choose what to skip.
These clients also block pre-roll ad’s as well as in-stream ad’s.
