“Pie fights”

Sorry, I thought the joke was implicit in your question, but the analog to “Lemmites” is “Piefites” which I think is just fine because say it out loud.

Yeah, this post started as a reassurance that Tailscale wouldn’t enshittify. But it turned out to just be an argument about how to avoid enshittification that boiled down to two principles:

1. You shouldn’t make your product worse because it’ll eventually harm the company; and
2. Founders are magic and need to never turn over control of the company to others (be it new CEOs or VC) to resist enshittification.

Both are partially right and partially wrong.

For #1: Yes, making your product worse eventually harms the company. No, you can’t expect CEOs to accept that as a reason to not make their product worse because even if it harms the company, short-term incentives that lead to enshittification are eventually going to become irresistible. His comment about reaching “zen” with leveled growth and profit will never stop VCs from calling in demands and favors.

For #2: Yes, founders typically “get it” more than their VC- or failure-initiated replacements. No, that doesn’t mean founders are uniquely resistant to enshittification. This is your point too, and it’s why I don’t believe this person - they lose credibility here because they don’t acknowledge they aren’t special. Every tech bro out there thinks they’ve cracked the code to permanent tech hegemony. That exceptionalist thinking turns into enshittification, since the product-worsening or overcharging is easier to justify as temporary/necessary/not-a-big-deal (until it isn’t).

And all of this doesn’t explain why Tailscale specifically gets immunity if the principles are true.

So interesting post, and a lot more self-awareness than most founders which is still a little reassuring, but a lot of warning signs too.

Edit: clarity

Thank you for this. I plan to look at the authentication part more closely, but that’s the part I can’t quite figure out (being an amateur at this stuff but still trying), since I’m nervous with just a password accessing it remotely or from the phone.

Authelia, NGINX, there is so much that’s confusing to me, but this might help.

They are at best a one-person propaganda shop, and at worst part of a targeted influence campaign by other actors.

I’ve written many times on this user in the lead-up to the US election, when there was cumulative evidence they were spamming content meant to split the left vote. I welcome moderate or right-leaning good faith discussion, but this user is not that. They sealion any responses with canned / apparently-LLM-assisted non-answers to legitimate constructive comments and debate, apparently to drive up “engagement” on their posts. I’ve read probably 30 threads where this happened - they do not answer direct questions or engage in actual debate, but immediately go into “I’m a victim” mode and turn the debate into a performative martyred “oppression” by everyone else. Effectively every response by them I’ve read is a misdirection and nonsense.

My strongly held opinion is that they are a bad faith actor, no matter what their motive or tools actually are. They are literally the only Lemmy user I’ve come across that I can say, without reservation, deserves a perma-ban.

Oh, it’s Google+ circles.

I wish I knew as well. I’ve been using Chromecast Audio myself, which works with PlexAmp self-hosting my music.

The problem is Chromecast Audio has been discontinued for years of course - Google did their Google thing, and unfortunately I never found anything else like it on the market. But you can connect those devices to any speakers and sync multi-room high quality audio very easily. I managed to pick up 4 of them when they did their fire sale, and I think you can find them on eBay for now still.

From their website: https://futo.org/what-is-futo/

What is FUTO? FUTO is an organization dedicated to developing, both through in-house engineering and investment, technologies that frustrate centralization and industry consolidation.

Ok… So what does that mean?

Through a combination of in-house engineering projects, targeted investments, generous grants, and multi-media public education efforts, we will free technology from the control of the few and recreate the spirit of freedom, innovation, and self-reliance that underpinned the American tech industry only a few decades ago.

FUTO is not reliant on any existing tech company or venture capital firm for its funding. We are not expecting quick profits. We will never cash out with a sale to a megacorporation the moment our technology begins to catch on. We will focus entirely on the mission.

If you share these goals, either as a user or a developer, we ask you to watch this space and get ready to throw off the stultifying limitations of the current state of affairs. We want to return to an era where a substantial portion of computer users can understand, control, and use their technology as they see fit without the approval or input of oligarchs. And we need your help.

Ok so… What does that mean?

Maybe the OP’s video explains these things (I hate watching videos for things like this), but I really thought I’d be able to find an explanation, in practical terms, of what this organization actually does on their own website.

What does it mean that it’s “opt-in”? Meaning, my opt-out is just to never update Immich again?

I read the whole thread just waiting to see something that would make me go, “Oh, see, there it is - that’s how it’s a trick. That’s why it’s a double-speak betrayal.”

And…I didn’t see it. It honestly looks like they are doing a thing to help develop the product in a way that as a user, I want; and they are not throwing current users under the bus or bait-and-switching what we were promised when we committed to the platform.

New users may not have it quite as good, but it still seems reasonable, and honestly - getting involved early is something that should be rewarded in special ways. We accept it in all sorts of other contexts (just with more up-front information, but not in materially different outcomes).

I appreciate this thoughtful reply. I read it a few times, I think I understand the goal. Basically you’re systematically closing off points that leak private information or constitute a security weakness. The IP address and the ports.

For the VPS, in order for that to have no bandwidth loss, does that mean it’s only used for domain resolution but clients actually connect directly to your own server? If not and if all data has to pass through a data center, I’d assume that makes service more unreliable?

I’ve saved this. I set up unraid and docker, have the home media server going, but I’m absolutely overwhelmed trying to understand reverse proxy, Caddy, NGINX and the security framework. I guess that’s my next goal.

Yup, this is the answer - if they need to be able to open the video with just the link, there’s functionally no difference if it’s self-host or YouTube unlisted. Just a lot less effort.

Thanks, appreciate it (I’m new to local text CPU models, I know it was a stupid question).

Second, I found it very quickly that the amount of RAM you have is critical. My main server is a core i5 4th gen, and so I put AI software on another one of my servers which is a core i5 7th gen. You would think that the latter would work a lot better, but it had half the ram, and it basically wasn’t even able to get started.

Is there an amount of RAM that’s currently considered the bare minimum for CPU-only self-hosting?