Sounds reasonable. I’d you, like me, need to protect yourself from sabotaging your own system you could even make NAS documents read only to force a manual step in before editing there.
For me the amount of items that should be there are zero following my own concept … But for some (especially shared sheets specifically) I’m too lazy.
Perhaps I should listen to my own advice here zzz
Paperless specifically: yes, shoving everything in it.
But I have honestly no idea what kind of data you have that are suitable for paperless AND have different versions.
I just checked mine, for me it’s… Zero. Not a single item, by definition, is in Paperless that can receive an update.
If it’s updatable personally I have everything version controlled - and I mean EVERYTHING, from CV over tutorials to construction ideas - hosted locally on forgejo.
Hey, Welcome! You’re having a wonderful and sometimes exhausting journey in front of you :)
I’ll just brain dump based on your questions and my associations. Hope something useful is in between!
First the basic setup options because they tie into how to handle your date flow:
basic Most popular I think is docker compose: here I suggest splitting it into one compose file per service though with one file holding your port config. This prevents you yourself getting confused by your port mappings :)
Second in line is a proxmox setup - similar vein and I lack the hands-on experience to talk about the difference.
Then there’s the “everything native” approach where you don’t rely on containers but manage it yourself or via a dedicated OS that makes life easier (after the learning curve) like nixos.
DATA
All this foundational stuff is important because it changes your approach. In general: don’t fear data duplication. Duplicate it until you learn where you want your data to life and only then define your flow.
Specific example: after I got used to paperless I don’t look into my opencloud anymore, at all. I still duplicate them there but as distributed backup, not for consumption.
If a dataset has a clear place ten it’s easy. If not then your options are different depending on your setup: For the *arr stack the official recommendation is to use one shared folder and mount that into each part for example. I personally don’t like that and have hard links for everything - that’s basically a pointer to the file that looks like the file itself everywhere. As long as one pointer exists the file still stays on your drive but when the last pointer is gone, the file is effectively deleted. On Linux, you can think of every file this way but by default only one pointer exists (which often people test as synonymous to “the file”. Drawdown: this only works really well if you manually keep either track of which tool links where or you don’t containerize everything.
Again a specific example: My downloaded torrents never get moved - instead hard links are created into whichever path and naming scheme I defined for each consumer - this way, out of murdrrbot_07.mp3 a new author/series/booktitle.mp3 was created, both pointing to the same data and seeing it as a proper file.
But then there is one more thing: I suggest you split your thinking into data consumption and manipulation - because for the first, data duplication doesn’t matter. Especially for documents you’re talking about a ridiculous small amount of disk space and if it’s only reading/watching/hearing you as manager have no problem that data might exist multiple times.
If you want to keep it clean by design then you’re leaving the starter mode self holster - welcome to system design and infrastructure architecture! Here your approach could be to define lifecycles for each data type that you have. What a “data type” is in this context btw is a user term, NOT the underlying tech stack. You need to understand and document how an invoice should be treated and consumed by you differently than an invitation or a informal letter. Only then do you map file types, incoming channels, transformation steps, etc etc.
In my opinion: huge overkill to this upfront.
In short: spin everything up, observe how you use it and only then decide where things need to stay unique and cleaned up. Don’t break your head over something that’s actually quite easy to repair!
To get to the certificate with which you THEN can attack devices remotely. I.e. the attacker needs one device. And the skill to extract the certificate and the willingness to abuse it.
One of each and then the 613k devices in the tested region are exposed.
You should also know that the original author invented them, that’s the reason why they are obscure.
At least the few I checked resulted in:
(X) was coined by Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows creator John Koenig in 2012.[1][2]
E.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chrysalism
Fun read though :)
If there are any plans I don’t know but what I can tell you is that there’s currently no way to circumvent these “restrictions” - because there are none.
Although from a user perspective it feels like something got taken away from Wayland perspective it’s the other way arou d: screensavers want rights that Wayland simply doesn’t provide to any user space application.
A screensaver needs to track user interaction globally (for the timeout), overlay over existing apps, manipulate viewport properties, manage the session and similar things, depending on the details.
Depending on what you want there might be ways to hack something together though.
Then there’s of course the disclaimer that although I’m not ab LLM my training data (aka experience) might be out of date :D
This sounds like an ad.
Note that “patented” doesn’t mean shit.
Plus it’s not as unique as they make out to be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
I personally wouldn’t use an encryption where someone else could change the conditions on how I use it anyway.
So much comments on just the title … Could come from anthropic directly.
There is literally zero basis on the made claim in the article, just arbitrage calculations over supposed token consumptions under non stable test sets.
I have no idea if/how much these stupid fuckers spend to get more customers - and this “article” wasted a lot of time showing that they don’t know either.
(Stupid is cut out because I don’t think they they’re stupid. Which makes it way worse in my book)
Bambu was the one company I oped to be wrong about when first seeing them. But their communication smelled “we are your future” from the beginning. :(
What a shit “but both sides” article.
“Bambu said they didn’t do something wrong so we must take that into consideration”.
It’s one of the most transparent and plump “I want to hold my users hostage” in a long time.
you’re doing good, friend!
thank you :)
oh you’ll get this reply from me in any community that you’ll attack without attempting to join.
MAM is one of the friendliest places in existence and instead of interacting with the people and just asking for help the statement is “you all suck”.
we’re not taking about elitist bullshit but about entitlement. My tone was way more friendly than the one OP chose after all, consciously though.
If they’d said “I don’t know what to do” the answer would’ve been very different.
Your comment is just … fitting. Calling me a representation for a cancerous behavior that I called out in OP: unreflective entitlement “my ways are correct”.
I don’t engage with private tracker communities beyond mam for that reason:
single sentence judgments, no explanations, blaming others…
this is a “you” problem, not a platform one.
not a single rule there exists that’s not rooted in technological limitations and choices.
no, it’s not about “just seeding back”, it’s also about protecting the community from people - frankly - like you who don’t bother to look into CSVs or platform limitations.
What you call “freedom” is a claim to do whatever you want no matter the impact on others.
the shout box on MAM would have helped you with setting up or any questions you might have.
but I don’t see any questions, just complaints qjd entitlement with question marks at the end.
That’s sich a Mac answer it’s unbelievable.
Describing “A project aimed to be agnostic of it’s environment” as a design mistake and not a inherent flaw of the OS is… Just wow.
Remember in this thread it’s about the pro and con of Macos as interference hardware. This is a major flaw which comes baked into the hardware. I tested it and find it an unacceptable limitation. It’s important for others to know.
To state “containerization is the issue” though… Just wow.
Depends what you want to do… For example I didn’t get python whisper in a container to run on Mac in any way that can be called “performance” and I don’t want my dev workflow to optimize for an OS I despise :D
This got way longer than expected but the tldr is: foreign exchange is super complex and depends on a lot of factors which don’t matter to you as money user. I tried to give a few examples below.
Plus: You’re mixing up two very different concepts:
Fiat evaluation and purchasing power.
First, money;
“More worth” is a natural instinct but doesn’t reflect how the money market works: it’s a question of how much of that money is in circulation as well for example:
1107650 CHF Million 19396,90 USD Billion
(Source tradingeconomics.com ).
So while it’s the CHF is slightly over value when compared one to one the picture is different when you look at total money available. Then you look at production capacity, glue creation and supply and demand for those currencies. All of this will flow into the price.
The minimum wage discussion is a completely different one: here you need to compare minimum wage to the purchasing power of the area you are looking at and take into consideration how the tax and financial situation changes to be able to compare it.
There’s for example concept called big Mac index which is a crude way of showing the difference: how much does MacDonald’s charge for their bullshit? They are everywhere and quite good at finding a acceptable local price.
If you want to dive deeper a key word to look for is the Gini Index with which the wealth distribution is quantified. I’m not good enough to explain it well though.
Now for the colors: design of money is the job of the nations (or unions) main bank to decide usually. The US seem to have the creativity of a washed down rock while others are more creative.
The Euro money for example is designed with guardrails by each member country but color, size and form are fixed and optimized to be easily recognized even with various visual impediments, which I personally really like.
Same: but it DOES make a difference that’s why I answered it. Target group is not necessarily the poster but other readers - this foundation is cumbersome but awesome, I want to spread positivity where possible :)
Yes because a) they are the biggest authority on these licences in the world, b) have many lawyers at hand actually and c) are the ones who can significantly damage your brand.
Imagine someone with a lot of friends, lawyers and money telling you “be careful, pal”.
Because physically speaking, chaotic and unpredictable are two different things - and why it works so well on this case: it’s becoming a stochastic problem, not a deterministic one.
It’s an awesome area for machine learning: you didn’t need to understand the result and how it got created, it just needs to be “close enough”.
The issue is the whole UX behind it. I have yet to see someone review the 30th prompt of “grep” - there is no same default or middle ground.
For example whitelist read actions or harness side limitations to the project folder.
This is just lazy - again. “Users don’t use or very bad security feature so they just want us to disable it”.