techwooded

On my journey from cheap coffee into specialty coffee, the style that I've enjoyed the most is natural process. Not only are the flavours very good themselves, but I think that it's the perfect encapsulation of why specialty coffee as a development in the industry has been fantastic because it's such a far departure from the stereotypical "burnt and bitter" profile most people associate with coffees.

In terms of decaf, I can't super notice a difference in flavour, but I'm partial towards the Swiss Water process as my spouse can't have appreciable amounts of caffeine due to some health issues, but they love coffee, and Swiss Water coffees are the only ones they can consistently drink without ill side effects.

I like a lot of what other people have said here (faith backed by a trusted party, representation of debt, etc), but I just want to drive home the point that money has value because we said it has value. Under a system of barter, you end up with people valuing things differently. So we switched to the gold standard, but then that constrained growth. Now we have fiat currency which is based on faith.

The reason why we chose gold was because it was relatively useless at the time, only good for making things look pretty essentially. It was valuable because it was rare, and since it was rare, a central authority could control the supply because it takes a lot of capital to extract and process. Modern fiat is similar, but the rarity (making it a good substitute for value of other goods and services) comes from the government being the only person who can issue it. It's honestly kind of a weird paradox. It has to be cheap and ubiquitous enough that the supply isn't limited, but rare enough that we accept it as a stand in for value. In an alternate universe, we could have chosen river rocks (not useful for other purposes, so no one would be tempted to take supply out of the system to use for other means, and pretty ubiquitous), but we couldn't effectively control the supply.

I think Libertarianism is incompatible with the way that humans operate as a society. Almost all flavors of libertarianism puts an individual's right to live as they choose as long as that doesn't violate the rights of others through force or fraud. Humans like to associate themselves into groups, and in almost any group there will be an imbalance in power, whether that's economic power, physical power (strength), or even something as abstract as eloquence or how outgoing you are. The issue then becomes that someone somewhere has to enforce the right to not be forced into giving up rights. In the classical construction of how libertarians view government, it is very easy to become more powerful than those meant to enforce limits on power. Even in our current political system, you see this when companies will spend more on their anti-trust court cases than the entire FTC spends total in a decade. Libertarianism has no mechanism to keep the enforcer the most powerful party involved

I'm interested where this comes from too. Is it just because they aren't a FOSS project?

Similar idea to how the Dao works in Daoism. "The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao"

For audiobooks, I personally use Libro FM, though audiobooks.com is also an alternate source. Unfortunately if you're looking only at price, you won't be able to move past Audible because they employ so many shady and bad-for-authors practices that their prices are artificially low. If you're only interested in getting DRM-free Cory Doctorow books, Craphound.

I'm not some great logician or anything, but in its most basic framing "You don't need to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide" would be along the lines of a proving too much fallacy as the conclusion is much too broad for the argument of just having nothing to hide. As with a lot of informal fallacies (fallacies made due to content and/or context of the argument), you could probably ascribe a few of them to this statement, for example you could probably correctly state that this is a thought-terminating cliché as well.

Depending on how it is deployed, as described in one of the comments of the linked post, this could also constitute a formal fallacy (reasoning with a flaw in its structure), specifically denying the antecedent. As a TL;DR, the structure would have to be "If you have something to hide then you should worry about surveillance [if p then q], therefore if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't worry about surveillance [if !p then !q]".

In my personal view call it a fallacy or not, the strongest arguments against "nothing to hide" have nothing to do with its fallacious nature or lack thereof. Additionally, demonstrating that an argument is fallacious just demonstrates that the argument needs to be reconstructed, rephrased, or better supported, not that its conclusion is false (else you fall victim to argument from fallacy, aka the fallacy fallacy).

For me the most influential was Matt Bruenig. He's extremely knowledgeable about Nordic model socialism as well as the building of a good welfare state.

Specifically, his explanations about how the way people frame welfare program is incorrect as it's not a vehicle of Socialism itself. As a TL;DR, people incorrectly assume it's about vertical redistribution (high income to low income), where the correct way to frame it is horizontal redistribution (e.g. a single lawyer that only has to take care of themselves and a lawyer who has 3 kids, a disabled sibling, and two elderly parents that they have to take care of should be able to live similar lifestyles).

He's also a labor lawyer and knows basically everything there is to know about the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), so it's helped reframe a lot of modern issues for me into a labor mindset.

He has a lot of stuff posted on The People's Policy Project as well as his personal website Matt Bruenig Dot Com. He also does a Podcast with his wife, Liz who is a great writer with the Atlantic and another lefty, where they end up talking about a lot of this stuff. The podcast feed also has in it a Socialism Series where Matt goes through the "canon" of socialist thought like Charles Fourier, Karl Marx, John Francis Bray, etc.

Not sure about Volla Phone, but it looks like FuriLabs will run on T-Mobile or their MVNOs (see here)

I went through all this, and it seems Jellyfin was the problem. I added this into my yaml:

ports: - "8096"

And now I can access the server.......if I use port 32769....which I figured out by using docker compose ps -a. I also had restarted it once, and before the restart, I accessed it with 32768. Any idea on how to fix this? I don't even know what's causing it

UPDATE: For those keeping score at home, I needed to change the mount from /etc/caddy to /usr/share/caddy and now it works. However, I have a new problem:

Once I get all three containers (caddy, jellyfin, and tailscale) up and running, now I can't access it. All three report as being up and I checked the logs and none list any errors, but when I go to my tailnet address, it can't find anything. I've even put the port number in and it can't find anything. Any ideas?

Thanks for the info, I'll try using a different mount point. Which directory would be best?

Do not use /root inside or outside of a container for plain file access. That’s insane.

Yeah I agree, I don't know where that came from in the initial error. That line in the yaml file had the path as ~/Jellyfin/jellyfin-tailscale/caddy/conf/Caddyfile so it was in my user directory

You also don’t mention if Podman is the underlying runtime managing the container

I'm not using Podman