• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • I would build a cheap PC based on a G series Intel CPU. The G7400 is cheap and will handle anything you want to transcode, plus won’t get bottlenecked with IO and other processes you might want to run later like the Arr stack. You probably don’t need more than 8GB of RAM. This will give you lots of flexibility to choose the right OS which suits you, which software you want, upgrades, and especially HDDs down the road (if you get a case with HDD slots). I started small and ended up with 15 disks over the years.

    Unraid ($250) is one option but it’s expensive and buggy. TrueNAS is a very popular ZFS based solution which is free. Windows is also a surprisingly good option. It’s your lowest effort option by far. You can replicate Unraid functionality with SnapRAID and DrivePool ($50).


  • ChatGPT can be surprisingly useful when tackling the endless bugs and weird and unexpected differences on each Linux distro. I think you’re missing out. It shaves off 30-40% of the time it takes me to arrive at the right solution. It’s obviously not omniscient, but it provides a lot of ideas which I had not considered. Usually one of those paths works.



  • FYI you can definitely watch while your network is offline. You just net to tell it that you’re happy with that (it’s not activated by default for security reasons).

    • In your Plex server settings, go to Network, enable “Show Advanced”.

    • Near the bottom, find the textbox that says List of IP addresses and networks that are allowed without auth

    • In this field, enter the local IP address of any Plex client(s) you want to keep using if your internet (or the Plex cloud) is down.

    • A example: 192.168.0.50

    • Save the setting, done.

    #Important thing to be aware of:

    What this setting does is tell your local Plex server to simply give any Plex client that connects from that specific IP full admin access to your Plex server, ignoring any account restrictions. This means that if you have things in place to restrict access to some libraries (kids blocked from 18+ movies etc) those restrictions will have no effect. Also if you have the option set to allow file deletion, then any client from that IP could also delete items. And they could of course change any settings in your Plex server. So your kids can watch anything on your server, if you have a guest in your network and they browse to the Plex web interface, they can mess with things.

    Because of that I would recommend to limit the amount of IP’s you enter in that field to the absolute bare minimum. For example, only whitelist the “main living room device” plus one device you to admin the server, such as a laptop.

    If you want to whitelist multiple devices, this is a example:

    192.168.0.50,192.168.0.77,192.168.0.80
    

    If you want to whitelist a entire network, these would be examples:

    192.168.0.0/24 (this means 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.0.255)
    
    192.168.0.0/16 (this means 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255)
    

    And of course those involved network devices should use static IPs in your home network.








  • JasSmith@sh.itjust.workstoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldSomething like Sonarr but for Youtube?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I agree. I am forced to use dockers with Unraid and I really don’t like them. For me, the benefits are very limited compared to the extra hassle. I think they have become so popular on Linux because they sidestep so many issues related to distro fragmentation. This is yet another example of how the “freedom” of Linux prevents long term innovation and general OS improvements. Especially in terms of UX.




  • JasSmith@sh.itjust.workstoRisa@startrek.websiteLearned from Kira
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Which part confuses you?

    I’ll ask again – to whom are you arguing against?

    To repeat myself, I’m arguing that the top comment (and clearly you) doesn’t understand the paradox of tolerance. If you’re not going to read my comments before you reply, what are you hoping to achieve? You just come across as lacking even basic reading comprehension.


  • JasSmith@sh.itjust.workstoRisa@startrek.websiteLearned from Kira
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 years ago

    I thought I made it quite clear but I will simplify it further for you: the tolerance paradox is misused to justify violence against people with whom the aggressor disagrees. It should not be used that way as it was never intended to be used that way. The top level comment is a classic example of not understanding what Popper wrote.


  • JasSmith@sh.itjust.workstoRisa@startrek.websiteLearned from Kira
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.

    Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.

    I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise

    But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

    Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.