I think it’s okay, I made a comment about the license first! It’s good discussion. I certainly like everything being copyleft, but I also get why people who make a contribution (an extension or otherwise) might want to license it differently. Ultimately whoever does the work gets to decide on the license — closed source I’ll never touch, extension or otherwise, but I’m lenient on open source.

Oh I’m fine with copyleft, even preferred. I just see any open source license, even MIT, and am pleased. Perhaps my bar is too low, but at this point anyone posting anything with open source protection to the creation is cool to me.

Hey some folks responded here which is great! For me, I think wiki and tracker are perfect like someone else mentioned, because a lot of folks without accounts can still access the knowledge created. The hard part is moderating of course. I’m not sure there is a perfect solution.

Ultimately, you’re producing something cool for the community and you get to set the terms for that; if discord is easy and sustainable, I prefer that to you doing anything else that isn’t sustainable to see the project through as long and vibrantly as you can. So in that sense just choose what makes sense.

So in short: do what makes sense for you and if one of the alternatives listed (maybe wiki it seems? That would be cool with me) works then that’s great!

I guess I’ll also plug forgejo or codeberg at this time haha

Edit: I’ll also say, more folks here for discussion is cool too, and good to have you posting and hope to see more discussion around it in the future here!

MIT license, cool! I’ll check this out. Any chance to migrate from discord to a more open platform for community engagement?

Oh interesting. I’ll give gdm a try and see if that gives any joy. Thanks for this tip, will return tomorrow with update on this particular change

Update: alas, no dice for this change.

Right, but the benefit of ranked choice in this election would have been “I’m gonna vote Lander or Michael Blake in 1 but put Mamdani second since I’d be happy with him”. Realistically who is the safe candidate that isn’t Cuomo? The only viable candidate is Mamdani. Cuomo is still going to be in the ballot as an independent, so you really would’ve only voted Cuomo here because you’re staunchly establishment dem, in which case you wouldn’t be putting Mamdani but you also would’ve put Cuomo in first.

But I think this is all ridiculous. If the argument is “don’t vote in primaries unless they’re ranked choice”, that’s a defeating argument and we should absolutely abandon that as wise advice. The argument should be “vote in every primary, especially ranked choice, and vote for the furthest left candidate you can if you don’t want more of the same corporatist democrat melange”. I hope we can agree on that.

While I understand your statement here in the Hillary v Trump scenario, I don’t think it necessarily applies here, as if anything , I would think that Lander supporters would’ve instead put Mamdani as their first choice if they only had a single choice, given the announcement. The down ballot races would have been less successful.

Well since he was selected as their first choice, presumably they would still choose their first choice when only given one choice. Ranked choice plays a role for everyone else down ballot and for automatic runoffs. People don’t put someone as their first choice that they don’t actually want as their first choice. So yes, they would have.

Actually, Mamdani would’ve won on first past the post as well (he has 43.5% of voters choosing him as first choice). He needs a 50% threshold to advance, which is where ranked choice will come in, but he would’ve won a first past the post anyways.

So even in a first past the post scheme, people should vote in dem primaries. I think we’re all on board with changing the dem party, and it starts in the primaries.

Go vote, or get oppressed. That’s basically the options and people need to understand that. Voting doesn’t guarantee you won’t be oppressed, but not voting guarantees you will.

No, Russia just called and said “Iran is cancelling our drone deliveries. Make Israel stop or we release the tape”

Yeah, I think I’ll go with proxmox as a first attempt — it seems to fit what I’m looking for and the feedback here has been pretty positive on that front. My main concern now is figuring out how to provision the hdds so that a jellyfin lxc can utilize it, nextcloud could use it, and I can save (configuration) backups to it. I’m comfortable with zfs in general (run that on my desktop), but I was under the impression that raid10 would be more performant with the same redundancy, when using 4 disks in raid10. Any one disk could fail, writes are at the speed of the disk because of mirror, and reads are 2x. I lose usable disk space, but I think 16tb is enough for me (for now of course haha). Am I wrong though on the zfs vs raid10? I guess actually I could use zfs, create a single pool with two mirrored vdevs. I am not sure how that would affect future growth, but should do really well for now. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do, in your opinion?

Amazing, thank you! I think I’m gonna have to be okay with not nailing it on the first go and trialing it out the next few days. Step one sounds like proxmox to me :)

Hey, thanks so much for the response, this is great! Love the idea of offloading ai workloads to their on vms to make facilitating managing resources easier.

Also, big thanks for the recommended software — very helpful list for me to look through, especially on the AI front. Do you have any notes on configuration for those in particular?

Thanks for the reply!

My understanding was that with only 4 drives, raidz would lower read throughput and not add much space / redundancy. Is that not true? Would you mind giving me a few more details on how you’d set up a 4x8tb raidz array (or could point me to a tool / resource that could help me? I haven’t been able to fully convince myself either way)

From the article, there were some requirements to try to avoid that waste:

“ Like demanding ISPs provide at least one tier of service poor people could afford. Or encouraging networks built with taxpayer money be open access, which, as we’ve discussed at length, helps boost broadband competition and lower costs. As well as encouragement that taxpayer money be spent on the most future-proof technology (fiber) where applicable. Pretty common sense stuff. “

I presume funding or continued funding was contingent on these sorts of things, which is probably why they (republicans, corporate class ISPs, etc) didn’t like it.

Awesome thank you so much!!

Yeah, I just can’t seem to find their proposed amendments. Maybe because they weren’t considered or something? I’ll have to see if I can find the cspan section. I just want a snippet to show my family where Republicans are voting lockstep to protect wealthy people.

Does anyone have a link to the proposed amendment and the vote on it?

They are alluding to capital gains. If you don’t need money now, you take 50 million dollars in stock, hold it for at least a year, and now you’re paying 15% or less instead of whatever the top tax bracket would be (like 37% or something) if you were to take it as employment income.

Yes this can happen, though it should be noted that a nonprofit health insurer would be regulated differently than a nonprofit research institute that isn’t responsible for providing or reimbursing care.

There can be corruption in governments and government programs too — but still the data says they do a better job at optimizing public health than for profit environments. Not letting perfect be the enemy of good, or better, it’s pretty clear from what I can gather that non profit is better than for profit, and optimized single payer is better than both of those.