One thing to consider with NFS is how stable your network is.

I’ve moved away from storing application files on my NAS and instead I store them locally where I run the application.

For things like jellyfin media or paperless files they can stay on the NAS and be accessed via NFS, but the config, db and other files the apps create as part of their operation, things can get into a bad state if the network drops at an unexpected time.

Instead I setup backup cronjobs that backup those files to the NAS nightly.

I agree with the other commenters regarding using the NFS share mounting right in docker compose. It does work great once you get it working.

It could also be that they were dependent on subsidised oil imports from Venezuela but over the last year Venezuela has drastically reduced how much oil it’s sending.

Isn’t that a photo a perfect example of what happens when we let private institutions provide public services (which is what you’re suggesting be done instead).

Are you trying to say that things would be better if elementary and High school also had to be paid for directly instead of being publicly funded?

Do you have an example that uses real income? All those percentage are relative to something, and that something is the most important part.

What province are we talking about and what salary are we talking about.

To be honest though, this sounds like some pie in the sky libertarian point of view where they are suggesting multiple things that are repeatedly proved false. Some of which include:

• trickle down economics, the idea that business will pass on additional profits to employees.
• business will regulate themselves and ensure consumer safety.
• business will happily provide the same infrastructure and services that we current fund through taxes for free or cheaper than it’s costs us right now to provide those services.

Which at that point I think you’re argument is correct, if we stopped spending effectively around 40% of our income (thats on the high-end) on funding public services, then over 75% of our income would need to go towards paying to get those same services back.

I would love to see the math behind that. Typically it’s a case where someone is effectively paying 25% of their income to taxes, but because they are too lazy to actually understand how taxes work they are easily convinced it’s well over 50%

I looked it up and it seems like the survival rate of new businesses is about 78% in the US.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/1-year-survival-rates-for-new-business-establishments-by-year-and-location.htm

The first year seems to be the hardest and each year after that survival rates get better and better.

This data suggests that after 10 years nearly 35% of business are still in business.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/34-7-percent-of-business-establishments-born-in-2013-were-still-operating-in-2023.htm

How many new business fail?

deleted by creator

I think that just shows you don’t understand how to read statistics.

That’s not a reasonable assumption at all. Everything costs more today than it did 2 years ago, so it’s very likely their expenses are higher than it was before.

It’s also possible that their profits are way up, but the data you showed doesn’t prove that at all.

That image shows revenue not profit

We don’t need to even do the math ourselves. It’s already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I’m surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

What? You’re the one claiming that various metals aren’t infinitely recyclable.

It’s true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn’t really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I’m just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn’t need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it’s useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you’re being downvoted.

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can’t get over this. We’re talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you’re talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that’s what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that’s it’s my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that’s not because they aren’t recoverable, that’s because it’s not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that’s just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren’t great at reading either. So I’ll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it’s gone.

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.