brian

joined 1 year ago
[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From a different post for this link: "Wow, this is so sad. I didn't know there was a Wonder Man thing in production either."

Sounds like it's working

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Has the Jellyfin app improved for Roku in recent years? Last I tried it, maybe 2 years ago, it was near unusable from a UI perspective

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 42 points 8 months ago (12 children)

While I think most agree with you, it's important to note there is more to networking than WAN access. Streaming 4k in your home network over WiFi sounds pretty awesome for security cameras and other self-hosted medias.

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 19 points 9 months ago (10 children)

My issue with the demands to have apple allow iMessage on other platforms is that then we could get stuck with the expectation of catering to those users.

There already are encrypted messengers like signal, telegram, or even WhatsApp. Why aren't people pushing at Apple users to make that switch themselves

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But going to hardwired will reduce the loss that comes with wifi. If you have already slow Internet, finding any way to maintain it without degradation can be worthwhile.

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

What does this mean though? Sure it's not new, but does it make it less of a mess?

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

I would say, more than likely no. That being said, just try it and see. More than likely it'll become apparent what is and isn't usable (I'd guess the octoprint interface would become unbearable to navigate if you're watching something at the same time).

You might also run into hangups on octoprint's end, potentially halting prints, though I feel like that should be avoidable (I know I've had prints halt when my pi was undervolted)

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong. I am most certainly projecting how I believe I might behave given the situation. And I do agree with the idea that once you give something, it's not up to you to decide how it's used. Like the article is pointing out, these biases are frighteningly common that funds will be used in negative ways (drugs/alcohol).

I am, however, trying to paint a more "accurate" picture for how most people would be charitably giving/receiving (small denominations, namely). Would that change in amount be significant in how it is then utilized.

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The choice of it being given in a large sum is interesting. I recognize I have the bias of giving money to individuals with fear that it will be misused, but I do think it has to do with amount. If someone gave me $20 randomly, I'd be much more likely to impulse spend it than if I was given $1,000. With a large sum it feels more impactful to save/invest/pay bills than needing to contribute small amounts consistently.

[–] brian@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The first thing that springs to mind is something like a "magic mirror". I haven't delved into it a ton, but I'm fairly certain that it would be able to hit most of your criteria.

That being said, I'd think it could be a decent enough starting point to at least find other things in the same vein.