Imagine having to manage its external cabling in order to charge it…

No need. Multiple communities provide redundancy against instance failure, just like instances provide redundancy. If .world is dead tomorrow for whatever reason, even temporarily, I’d post an article here, or vice versa. People subscribed to both would see my post in either case. If I were more diligent, I’d even cross-post to both when both instances are up. Then none of my posts would be lost if one of the instances goes. Subscribing to multiple communities of the same name/type is the norm on Lemmy. There’s no need for same-name communities to be unique, quite the opposite.

Doesn’t look preachy to me. Reasonable opinion stated reasonably.

Why can’t I remember the find parameters?

I don’t know. Perhaps write a couple of aliases?

Really cool but a bit pricey.

I was trying to figure out how graphene would achieve this. By smearing some on the pins? But then why graphene and not just graphite? And how do you keep the charging pins from being shorted?

What you’re experiencing isn’t hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is more like when a loaf of bread is $1 today, $2 a month after and $10-100 by the end of the year. Grown up in country during hyperinflation.

I don’t like seeing Bluesky next to Mastodon in such context, but at least they’re calling out that Bluesky is not decentralized, and I’m happy Mastodon is mentioned in larger outlet’s articles.

Right so I guess the question of 3 is whether it means 3 backups or 3 copies. If we take it literally - 3 copies, then it does protect from user error only. If 3 backups, it protects against hardware failure too.

E: Seagate calls them copies and explicitly says the implementer can choose how the copies are distributed across the 2 media. The woodchipper scenario would be handled by the 2 media requirement.

Hm I wonder why snapshots wouldn’t satisfy 3. Copies on the same disk like /file, /backup1/file, /backup2/file should satisfy 3. Why wouldn’t snapshots be equivalent if 3 doesn’t guard against filesystem or hardware failure? Just thinking and curious to see opinion.

• Primary ZFS pool with automatic snapshots
  • Provides 3+ copies of the files via snapshots (3)
• Secondary ZFS pool at a different location replicates the primary
  • Provides more copies of the files (3)
  • Provides second media (2)
  • Is off-site (1)

Does this make sense?

The answer for doing this on your PC is Docker with one of the open source containers built for this. For example this.

If you want a dedicated machine, your Pi would do just fine but you’ll have to connect your storage where the downloads are to it. You should still use Docker for that since it’s the easiest setup and it would take care of important corner cases such as blocking seed when the VPN is down.

If Raid is backup, then Unraid is?

Try ZFS send if you have ZFS on the other side. It’s insane. No file IO, just snap and time for the network transfer of the delta.

Every hour. Could do it more frequently if needed.

It depends on how resource intensive the backup process is.

Consider an 800GB Immich instance.

Using Duplicity or rsync takes 1 hour per backup. 99% of the time is spent in traversing the directory structure and checking which files have changed. 1% is spent into transferring the difference to the backup. Any backup system that operates on top of the file system would take this much. In addition, unless you’re using something that can take snapshots of the filesystem, you have to stop Immich during the backup process in order to prevent backing up an invalid app state.

Using ZFS send on the other hand (with syncoid) takes less than 5 seconds to discover the differences and the rest of the time is spent on the data transfer, at 100MB/s in my case. Since ZFS send is based on snapshots, I don’t have to stop the service either.

When I used Duplicity to backup, I would backup once week because the backup process was long and heavy on the disk array. Since I switched to ZFS send, I do it once an hour because there’s almost no visible impact.

I’m now in the process of migrating my laptop to ZFS on root in order to be able to utilize ZFS send for regular full system backups. If successful, eventually I’ll move all my machines to ZFS on root.

What’s the second B stand for?

WTF, I always thought Dr. Oetker was just another brand of some American multinational. It’s apparently German.

How does an oligarchy come into existence in a capitalist democracy that didn’t start with a monarchy? Can you see a relationship between the process of consolidation and the creation of this oligarchy, where the oligarchs are the people who accumulated wealth through this process, gradually using this wealth to capture the regulators, leading to more consolidation, more wealth and greater capture, and repeat? We didn’t wake up one day with an oligarchy that wasn’t there yesterday. It’s not like all of the current oligarchs can be traced back to an oligarchic family from the past.

I’m not familiar with the corporate landscape in Germany, but the US and Canada also have anti-trust law and competition agencies whose purpose is to prevent consolidation. Why hasn’t that prevented it?

Businesses need to fail because otherwise the wrong people end up leading.

When businesses fail, their competitors buy their assets, employees, customer bases, and get bigger. Keep playing that a few more rounds and you get a monopoly that can and will prevent or buy new entrants. Then anyone including the wrong people in the industry enter this one company because that’s the only company in this industry.

This isn’t an argument against letting businesses fail. It’s an argument to show that the game of competition doesn’t produce stable competitive environment in the long run. Instead it’s a temporary stage that some markets exist in on the way to consolidation. You can find countless examples for this around us. And therefore letting businesses fail through competition isn’t a long term solution to these problems.