I've set up Lemmy, Forgejo, Nextcloud and Mastodon. Forgejo is unbelievably easy, Mastodon and Lemmy both are complex but if you follow the instructions you get there pretty quickly.
Matrix is like "Follow a book of documentation, then when it doesn't work anyway, spend hours of your life troubleshooting a bunch of stuff that's NOT in the documentation. Why is this so hard?"
It's so much easier to set up and install than Matrix.
Jokes on them, I don't keep shit in ~/Documents, all my goodies are on a network share mounted at ~/Netstore
See kids? Monsters not bad! Monsters just... different! And different not bad!
Yogurt has taught you well.
There are tankies that proudly did this.
If you didn't have the screen sharing requirement, I would suggest Mumble. It does everything else you want and the ease of install is like "apt get and edit a config file." The server configuration to get the rooms and privacy settings you want is a whole different story, it's the OPPOSITE of intuitive, but once you figure it out it's quite robust.
The right tool for the job as described is definitely Matrix, but it does take some advanced troubleshooting (in my experience) to get it working. Some folks I know say the Ansible playbook just works, but I've been part of three deployments and that's NEVER ONCE been my experience. Maybe the Ansible playbook "just works" if you've been using Ansible regularly for years and sometimes dream in yml. That's not me.
IMHO, when compared with the ease of install of Mumble (or even Lemmy), the difficulty on installing Matrix is somewhere in between a joke and something that should be a mild point of embarrassment to the dev team (who built a great tool, so I'm not out to shame them here).
But right now, we have a situation in America where activists and organizers BADLY need alternatives to third party hosted apps... and the team has built this great tool that only fairly hardcore sysadmin / devops folks can get working. The difficulty of installing / maintaining is the biggest obstacle to the immediate, swift and widespread adoption of Matrix by US activist groups. I should know.
No, my username is my stage name from another life. One of the most interesting questions I've ever gotten about it though in over 20 years of using it.
You have the next low budget Netflix teen supernatural / fantasy / romance / horror / drama / latest ripoff of BtVS right there. Either filmed in England and set in England or filmed in Canada, but set in the US.
Got to get some unknown but super hot gen Zer to play the dragon boy... Who obviously is a normal hot boy who shapeshifts into a dragon. He's either orphaned and doesn't know he's a dragon and is "Why are these weird things happening to me? Oh god I'm a monster!! Better not talk to my friends about this cuz they might reject me!" OR, he's like the black sheep of his super rich dragon family, hanging out with and dating humans while his dragon parents are all super judgy about it. He either has a hot dragon sister who tries to sabotage his relationships and is mean and condescending to everyone only to turn out to be an actually pretty cool person in season 2 when she ends up dating the <highschool quarterback / nerdy head of the science club / nerdy film club kid / possibly the youngish hot teacher if she's older>. OR he has the aloof, loyal to the family, arrogant older dragon brother who turns out to be an actually pretty cool person in season 2 when he ends up dating the <highschool quarterback / gay best friend / grungy band kid>.
Meanwhile the redhead girls are sisters who are actually <witch / vampire / werewolf / fairies> and are in a complicated will they / won't they love triangle with the hot dragon boy (which wouldn't be so complicated if the characters would just have honest, open conversations with each other instead of hiding from their feelings and lying to each other constantly about everything). They can't be with the hot dragon boy anyway, because <contrived nonsensical reason that witch / vampire / werewolf / fairies can't be with dragons>. In spite of that, their gay dads (who are concealing some terrible secret that's not actually terrible and not actually that secret, but we won't find that out until season 2 or 3) are super supportive of their romantic choices and just want them to be happy no matter what, in spite of the pressure they're getting from the <coven / conclave / high council / fairy court> to make sure their daughters follow "the Code / Pact" and don't fraternize with dragons (This could mean war with the dragons or something, or opening a portal to hell, or...who the fuck knows... The audience certainly doesn't know why, and won't find out until the season 1 finale, probably because filming started on the first five episodes before the writers figured out what it actually means).
Whichever sister ends up with the dragon boy (probably not until halfway into season 2, you gotta milk these things as long as possible), the other sister will get a hot boy / girl toy as a consolation prize. That character is either a best friend / sidekick who has been there from episode 1 "just waiting for them to notice" OR is introduced in the first episode of season 2., in which case they're either a totally normal mundane human (and wiley shenanigans will ensue to hide the supernatural world from them as long as possible) OR they appear to be a totally normal mundane human until the BIG REVEAL that they are a <demon / warlock / dragonslayer knight> working for / a sworn enemy of the <coven / conclave / high council / fairy court>.
Anyway, pitch that at Netflix, they'll probably make it.
So this is... what I do for work, just now in my leisure time?
There's a learning curve, but if you're familiar with WAF's it's not hard.
This article starts with an ideological objective (in principle, we object to killing owls, here's an impassioned appeal to your heartstrings about how horrible that is) and then cites some research to build a case for the existing ideological conclusion (here's some links to some studies).
And I get, that from a radical animal rights perspective, culls of any kind can be problematic. But as someone who's done a bunch of volunteer work helping manage invasive species, I have a feeling the authors might not object to me spending my time cutting down Russian olives on the Colorado front range, or weeding out invasive Chinese grasses in San Francisco Bay estuaries (both things I have spent many hours of my life doing). IDK how they would feel about me killing and eating Louisiana bullfrogs in California streams and ponds (but those assholes are only there because humans brought them there, and they're eating a dozen native frog species to extinction).
In this particular case, the only reason the barred owls were able to spread from the Northeast the way they did is because humans transformed the Great Plains into an environment they could live in (they need high perches for nesting and sleeping, they didn't have that until European descended humans started planting trees and building buildings).
Spotted owls aren't the only species of owl that barred owls compete with and kill (they also target ground nesting owls, and will happily eat great horned chicks as well).
You can make a radical animal rights argument that "killing owls is horrible full stop." I don't want to stop you from making that argument, but I don't agree with it on that sole basis and I do want to provide a counterpoint to it. I love hearing the great horned owls hooting outside my house at night and if some screechy asshole barred owl is killing their chicks, I will personally shoot that motherfucker and sleep like a baby.
You can correctly argue that human industrial society (and the kind of decision making based in capitalism and the profit motive) is causing all kinds of really bad problems. I 100% agree with that assessment, but I don't think "and therefore we shouldn't kill owls" necessarily follows. I agree that we should encourage ecology to self-heal, but informed management of the damage we're causing is also a worthy goal.