The biggest problem people run into is a lack of thier niche communities here, and that's mostly due to a lack of overall numbers. Reddit, while a festering hellhole, still has that. I'd be thrilled to see that change one day, but it's definitely gonna be a while.

Yeah, but it doesn't really benefit the automotive manufacturers to snitch on speeders.

I've been wondering how to accomplish this lately. I'm looking to host a few Fediverse instances for me and my friends to use. It'd be really nice for everything I run on those to have an SSO via the main domain or a login domain.

My idea was:

• Lemmy.example.social
• Mastodon.example.social
• Pixelfed.example.social
• Matrix.example.social

Login via

• accounts.example.social

Is this possible, or in the realm of possible?

Now, it basically means racist bigotted asshole who simps for billionaires.

Lemmy has been growing alot lately, so there's certainly reason to have optimism. It's really just a numbers game to get more niche communities here.

Well, tbf, creepy stuff does happen in nowhere.

Would you put someone “just nuts” in front of a tv camera?

That's generally what happens because it draws in ratings.

Same, but only logged out. I don't really care to comment/interact over there anymore anyways.

I personally just use an old desktop (4th gen i7, yeah that old) and a NAS (mostly for bulk storage seperated from the server). The device you listed is probably more than enough to handle everything, unless you're sharing Nextcloud and/or Plex with a bunch of people.

Have you looked into an actual NAS rather than a mini-pc though? It'll give you more storage upgradeability over a mini-pc, and a quality NAS could probably host everything.

I would also consider buying used, especially first starting out. You can save some money buying a model year or two older hardware for decent savings.

I didn't realize APC was going that route. I wanted to vomit after I saw what came up on Google.

I don't want a UPS to connect to anything outside my network. Pretty much goes against the principle of selfhosted.

I don't think an additional UPS is really necessary here. I do have switches to other parts of my network, but they're just for TVs and game consoles, so I don't really think a UPS is needed there.

It's mostly a failsafe so I can poweroff my NAS properly rather than corrupting data. Since my server and router are on the same power strip, it makes sense that they're all on the UPS since they're the 3 main items interacting with each other.

Something with NUT as boothin@kbin.social mentioned might be a good option so it can send alerts when it's activated. I'll have to research that more.

Edit: figured out how to mention other users.

I like the idea on paper. This feels like what the Fediverse needs. I'll have to tinker around with it.

How meta

Thanks for breaking it down like this. This made it alot easier to understand.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll definitely look into this more.

Yeah, I'm amazed I haven't had a need to upgrade yet.

Happy to help, though might I suggest you get 4 bay version of the NAS instead of the 2 bay version (if your budget allows it). I speak from experience in this where storage space required tends to grow quicker than anything else, and you may outgrow a 2 bay NAS quickly. This is especially true if you're running any type of raid array.

You'll also want to get a UPS to help avoid data corruption on power failures. Even if your power goes out indefinitely, doing a proper shutdown can help prevent data failure. You can see the responses I recieved asking for help on this topic here: https://lemmy.world/post/158974

I wish you luck in this endeavor.

It could be worse. At least UK is kinda in the Southeastern direction. The Big 10 has 16 schools now...

This honestly is dependent on alot of different factors, including the type of your ISP, thier national footprint, and what other lines of business they have.

Let's first start with what type of ISP you have. The main 2 today are cable and fiber. If you have DSL/Satellite/Fixed wireless, they don't really carry cable tv as part of thier infrastructure. Anyways, Fiber has a serious edge over traditional coax cable in bandwidth. Light has a much higher bandwidth limitation, whereas copper wire is very limited in comparison. So far, cable has been able to keep up with Fiber's download speeds, and with DOCSYS 4 rolling out, hopefully they'll get closer to symmetrical uploads speeds. This will allow them more bandwidth to keep up with the fiber companies, though I suspect one day, the limits of copper coax wiring will catch up to them. Consider too, some companies like Comcast are putting in fiber to the premises in select areas, though it seems pretty limited at this point.

Another thing to consider is thier national footprint. Larger ISPs are probably going to be the last ones to get rid of traditional cable, simply because they'll have enough customers to keep it viable longer. We're already seeing smaller ISPs drop them and bundle a streaming service instead (more on that later).

The other factor to consider here is what other lines of business they own. One I'm thinking of in particular is Comcast. They own NBC/Universal. They've been pushing Peacock hard, though it's not really profitable yet. I suspect the day they get rid of cable is the day they require you to pay for Peacock instead, and Peacock will probably cost more so it isn't hemorrhaging money. Other ISPs are also partnering with streaming services, and it wouldn't surprise me if they start buying up streaming services too to complete with Comcast. We already saw AT&T try to buy Time Warner back in 2016.

So, it's really anyone's guess, but the death of cable is really just going to be replaced by forced subscriptions to streaming services. When they drop the actual cable tv is largely dependent on how fast they get outpaced by Fiber internet providers.

Depending on whether it's college or NFL, and how local your team is, you could try an over the air television antenna.

I get every NFL game I need with mine.

Or yous

Care to elaborate?

I've really enjoyed the questions asked here, and I've found the communities feedback to be invaluable.

And not all of those questions have been asked by me.

It absolutely is viable. I do so myself. There's pros and cons to this.

The cost of hardware is more because you have more pieces, you probably need a decent shelf to hold everything (check the local thrift stores for old home theater stands, they work great), and it may add latency for some things where they interact together.

The hardware modularity of it is really nice though. It's kinda nice not having to worry about losing all your data if you need to reinstall everything on the server. And it gives you the ability to update in smaller pieces rather than all at once.

That being said, a NAS itself generally isn't all that good at transcoding Plex. Most entry level NAS's ($200-$300 range) can only transcode a few streams at a time. However you might not use transcoding all that much anyway if you store media on it in a playable format.

I've personally only ever used Synology, and they're not bad, but they've been doing a few anticonsumer practices in more recent years that makes me want to get away from them. They're really easy to set up though, so it's not a bad option starting out.

If you're going to go this route, I'd host Nextcloud on the NAS as well as your Plex media, then mount the share on your server so that your server can do transcoding while you're NAS does bulk storage. Everything else could be hosted on the server

Considering you're starting from square one though, it may be better to just buy a beefier NAS, and then get a server as your needs expand. Especially if you don't plan on sharing Plex or Nextcloud with a bunch of people outside your home at this time.

I'd love a younger Bernie style guy to run, but he's one of a kind.

Many of the younger progressives don't seem to have the conviction and/or authenticity it seems, though it could also be due to everyone being afraid too to run against an incumbent.

It's really depressing to think there's no good options, and we're just voting for least awful.

There is Pete Buttigieg, though he's an incompetent hack.