MudMan

That's not true at all. Synology will sell you 24 bay rack mounted devices and 12 bay towers, as well as expansion modules for both with more bays you can daisy chain to them.

Granted, I believe those are technically marketed as enterprise solutions, but you can buy a 12 bay unit off of Amazon for like two grand diskless, so... I mean, it's a thing.

Not saying you should, and it's definitely less cost effective (and less powerful, depending on what you have laying around) than reusing old hardware, but it does exist.

I'm currently running some stuff out of an old laptop which I also have tucked away somewhere and just... remote desktop in for most of the same functionality. And even if you can't be bothered to flip it open in the rare occassion you can't get to the points where the OS will let you remote in, there are workarounds for that these days. And of course the solution to the "can't hook it up to a keyboard and mouse" in that case is the thing comes with both (and its own built-in UPS) out of the box.

Nobody is saying that server grade solutions aren't functional or convenient. They exist for a reason. The argument is that a home/family server you don't need to use at scale can run perfectly fine without them only losing minor quality of life features and is a perfectly valid solution to upcycle old or discarded consumer hardware.

I think the self-hosting community needs to be more honest with itself about separating self hosting from building server hardware at home as separate hobbies.

You absolutely don't need sever-grade hardware for a home/family server, but I do see building a proper server as a separate activity, kinda like building a ship in a bottle.

That calculation changes a bit if you're trying to host some publicly available service at home, but even that is a bit of a separate thing unless you're running a hosting business, at which point it's not a really a home server anyways, even if it happens to sit inside your house.

I mean... my old PC burns through 50-100W, even at idle and even without a bunch of spinning hard drives. My actual NAS barely breaks that under load with all bays full.

I could scrounge up enough SATA inputs on it to make for a decent NAS if I didn't care about that, and I could still run a few other services with the spare cycles, but... maybe not the best use of power.

I am genuinely considering turning it into a backup box I turn on under automation to run a backup and then turn off after completion. That's feasible and would do quite well, as opposed to paying for a dedicated backup unit.

No.

I had that laptop before I tried to move it to Linux and I'm not buying a new one. It does work under Windows.

This is not my laptop not supporting Linux, this is Linux not supporting my laptop. Because I already own the laptop. If people weren't trying to cheerlead for their preferred OS for other reasons than... you know, whether it's good or not, this wouldn't even be a discussion. In fact, half the "Windows sucks" angles these days are down to "Windows 11 doesn't support specific pieces of pre-existing hardware". Which, you know, is the exact problem I'm having here.

Now, would ASUS finally paying attention to the ecosystem make it easier for a whole bunch of people to move over? Sure. Of course. But that doesn't contradict my previous statements.

I have an ASUS laptop that maps its multiple speakers incorrectly under Linux, it's been killing me for months and I'm now considering it. I was not prepared for the realization that the Linux path forward would be to just pay by the bug fix.

I nean... it's a labelling thing, presumably. They don't want milk substitutes to be labelled "milk" so they can't advertise as easily as a milk substitute on supermarket shelves, and presumably the same is true for meat substitutes, except this goes at a glacial pace and they tried and failed in 2020 when it was still relevant and now they're trying again even though nobody cares about veggie burgers anymore.

You are presuming this sort of arcane manipulation of collective weirdness into multinational legislation follows human logic, and that way lies madness. Best you can do is steer it ever so slightly so it at least does something in the aggregate that stops some anarchocapitalist loon from privatizing oxygen or whatever. It's been a very weird century.

Not really, it's more of a farmer's lobby protecting animal products from vegetarian alternatives.

Which as someone else says below is a bit neutral and doesn't do much, but hey. They did it to milk.

Guessing it's some bargaining chip with the industry on the wider legislation they're passing? This stuff is pretty byzantine. European agricultural industries are constantly on the verge of setting stuff on fire. It's a full time job to be even vaguely aware of what's going on with them.

Yeah, but... this isn't that.

You're literally saying "well, anecdotal impressions say this, so I refute this study that says something else".

We don't like that. That's not a thing we like to do.

And for the record, as these things go, the article linked here is pretty good. I've seen more than one worse example of a study being reported in the press today.

They provide a neutral headline that conveys the takeaway of the study, they provide context about companies mentioning AIs on layoffs, they provide a link to the full study and they provide a separate study that yields different, seemingly contradicting results.

I mean, this is as close to best case scenario for reporting on a study as you can get in mainstream press. If nothing else, kudos to The Register. The bar was low but they went for personal best anyway.

Man, the problem with giving up all the wonky fashy social media is that when you're in an echo chamber all the weird misinformation and emotion-driven politics are coming from inside the house. It's been a particularly rough day for politically-adjacent but epistemologically depressing posts today.

So the report itself argues there is a need for better data, and it seems fairly level headed, but...

...what's with people being mad about it?

I say this a lot, but there seems to be a lot of weird anti-hype where people want this AI stuff to work better than it does so it can be worse than it is, and I'm often confused by it. The takeaway here is that most jobs don't seem to be behaving that differently so far if you look at the labor market in aggregate. Which is... fine? It's not that unexpected? The AI shills were selling that entire industries would be replaced by AI overnight, and most sensible people didn't think so or argued that the jobs would get replaced with AI wrangler tasks because this thing wouldn't completely automate most tasks in ways that weren't already available.

Which seems to be most of what's going on. AI art is 100% not production-ready out of the gate, AI text seems to be a bit of a wash in terms of saving time for programmers and even in more obvious industries like customer service we already had a bunch of bots and automation in place.

So what's all the anger? Did people want this to be worse? Do they just want to vibe with the economy being bad in a way they can pin on something they already don't like and maybe politics is too heavy now? What's going on there?

Boycotts, yes.

"I was on the fence about buying this and I want to sound engaged on the Internet, may still get it later" voting-with-your-wallet nonsense? No.