This is why they removed the apps. They want to be driving traffic through the app, and the 3rd party apps prevented that from happening.

Honestly the writing's been on the wall for Plex for a while now. I think it was when they introduced podcasts or news or something that it first became clear to me that Plex was trying to grow beyond a software company for self-hosters and prepare themselves for an IPO or something. I still use it simply because their client availability is second-to-none and I've got a bunch of people signed up already, but I've already made my peace that the "Plex getting shittier" line and the "Jellyfin getting better" line are getting closer and closer to crossing each other.

It really, really didn't need to look like a person. Not even a little bit.

Sell all stock photo memes and buy worried Alex Jones memes.

We are in contact with the team there to understand why this incident occurred.

I can tell you right now why this incident occurred, it’s because of all the rats.

I'm personally a big fan of OpenAudible. It's not free, but it's not crazy expensive and it does all the work for you. You sign into your Audible account in the app, it will pull your library, download each book, decrypt it, and convert it to the format of your choice (I usually do M4B). I've been using it for years and it makes downloading your Audible library in an ongoing basis a breeze.

Honestly, if you’re doing regular backups and your ZFS system isn’t being used for business you’re probably fine. Yes, you are at increased risk of a second disk failure during resilver but even if that happens you’re just forced to use your backups, not complete destruction of the data.

You can also mitigate the risk of disk failure during resilver somewhat by ensuring that your disks are of different ages. The increased risk comes somewhat from the fact that if you have all the same brand of disks that are all the same age and/or from the same batch/factory they’re likely to die from age around the same time, so when one disk fails others might be soon to follow, especially during the relatively intense process of resilvering.

Otherwise, with the number of disks you have you’re likely better off just going with mirrors rather than RAIDZ at all. You’ll see increased performance, especially on write, and you’re not losing any space with a 3-way mirror versus a 3-disk RAIDZ2 array anyway.

The ZFS pool design guidelines are very conservative, which is a good thing because data loss can be catastrophic, but those guidelines were developed with pools that are much larger than yours and for data in mind that is fundamentally irreplaceable, such as user generated data for a business versus a personal media server.

Also, in general backups are more important than redundancy, so it’s good you’re doing that already. RAID is about maintaining uptime, data security is all about backups. Personally, I’d focus first on a solid 3-2-1 backup plan rather than worrying too much about trying to mitigate your current array suffering catastrophic failure.

Especially given the lack of ways to really differentiate your product, it was bound to become increasingly commodified and end up with a few producers who manage to operate efficiently and the rest going under.

Honestly I’d kinda be glad if, when I go to the store, I’m not met with 65 completely identical options and have to explain to the pot sommelier that I just would like some pot please, and that the 16 creative adjectives that have been affixed to the front of the word “preroll” are largely inconsequential to me.

It depends if you're using them all. Systems where I have lots of applications installed (especially graphical ones) will have lots of packages, my bare-minimum container hosts will have few. I think there's also an element of selection bias here, because people posting screenshots of neofetch on their system are also likely to be people who intentionally run very minimal systems focussed on minimizing the number of packages so they can brag about it on the internet.

TL;DR - the right number of packages to have is as many as are required for your computer to do what you need it to do, and not too many more than that.

While I find that I agree with his takes like, 55% of the time, I do agree that Debian and Arch are basically the S-tier distros. So many of the other ones are basically just opinionated Debian or Arch, and while those can be useful when you’re getting started, I’ve found that for the long haul you’re better off just figuring out how to configure the base distribution with the elements of the opinionated ones that you like rather than use those distros themselves. Also, RIP CentOS. I would have put that in a high tier before the RHELmageddon (not top tier mind you, but it had a well defined use case and was great for that purpose).

Honestly the way I always look at it is just take the lifetime cost and divide it by the yearly cost and if I think the product/license deal will exist for that long (and I’ll use it for that long) it’s worth it otherwise not. Like, I have lifetime Plex and frankly I don’t expect the, to exist forever but I like the premium features and I’ve had lifetime for long enough that I’ve saved money.

Yeah honestly I'd rather some VPN provider get my $15 so I can torrent in peace rather than giving it to one of ten different streaming providers so they can pay some executive to dream up new ways to extract value from me for sitcoms from the 90s.

Hey… it sorts properly alphabetically

Call me if you need help ;p

I think a lot of people use Tailscale and add their external clients to a dedicated tailnet. How are you hosting Plex without opening any ports though?

Is “none” an animal?

Honestly I think the answer to “Why don’t we see weapons like this in Star Trek” is that they just have cooler weapons. I have to imagine that the energy weapons the average ship is packing could do similar, if not much more, damage to a planet, but could also do much less more precisely.

This is very exciting, I’ve felt that SQLite has held back the performance of the *arrs for a long time so I’m excited to see this.

This may sound overly rational or perhaps even cold, but I think that all relationships are fundamentally about exchanges of value. Ideally, each person derives more value than the expend from engaging in a relationship. When I say value, I'm talking about psycho-emotional value; do you enjoy engaging in this relationship, does this relationship make you feel a way about your self that you want to feel, etc. In my mind, it is healthy for relationships to end when one or all of the participants are losing net value. Now, this being said, I think that many people would read this as advising against sticking around through tough patches etc., and that is not my intention. Putting in the work to develop your relationships, though often difficult and unpleasant, often provides positive value in the long term, as you strengthen your relationships and are able to provide and derive more value from each other.

However, if you can look at a given relationship and realize "I don't think I've been getting enough value from this relationship to make it worth what I'm spending in time, emotions, energy, etc., and I don't see how that is going to change any time soon" it may be time to move on. Remember too that this does not need to be a permanent end. Two people can realize that they're not at points in their lives right now where they're able to help each other, and later in their lives come together again now that they can.

The year was 2006, and the 80 GB HDD in my Dell Optiplex 790 was full of podcasts, stolen music, and episodes of Dr. Who…