Open source alternative to Adobe Lightroom

For that use case, go syncthing. Nextcloud would be overkill. I run both, I use syncthing for my personal files and Nextcloud when they should be shared with others.

Ah, yeah I guess you can’t browse your photos using a file system view. I just meant that it won’t automatically reorganize your pictures on the file system.

However you can create albums via an API call. You could probably write a script that adds each folder to an album or something.

It definitely can, it’s called an “external library”. I just added my entire photo collection and use Immich as a frontend to view them all

I dunno, I suspect most human alt texts to be vague and non descriptive. I’m sure a human trying their hardest could out write an AI alt text… But I’d be pretty shocked if AI’s weren’t already better than the average alt text.

Same reason most non technical people using Linux today do so on the Steam Deck. If you want to spread Linux, trying to convince individuals is going about it all wrong.

You need to convince Canonical or Red Hat to spend more on partnerships with manufacturers. I’m not sure if anyone else has deep enough pockets.

I’m experienced enough to know that out of my mobile carrier and ISP, I am the least trustworthy operator.

That’s about the minimum price for what you’re asking.

What are the VMs for? Could you use containers instead?

One of us! One of us!

The show is not high art. No one will be winning an Emmy for acting. It certainly doesn’t warrant the high rating on RT. But it’s entertaining, engaging, visually stimulating and a fantastic adaptation of the games.

If you’re expecting a Last of Us calibre deep dive into society and the human condition coping with an apocalypse, you’ll be disappointed. If you’re expecting a fun romp through the wastelands with body parts gratuitously exploding into red mist, then look no farther!

He could be an average Joe who works in the IT department of a company a national government would be interested in.

Not obvious to me at all. It doesn’t follow that because a country helped fight genocide in the past that somehow makes them incapable of perpetrating it themselves? Makes no logical sense.

How so?

No.

And that doesn’t make me stupid because there exist times I say yes.

Good context to have!

I’m not commenting on this particular case because I’m uninformed, the Times very well could have completely shit the bed here.

But one difference between a news outlet and an every day citizen is that a news outlet pretty much has to report on what the government’s position is. If the white house claims there are WMD’s, that’s something the public needs to know. Of course the language around how that gets presented is everything!

It sounds like there was too much blind trust in that statement and the language didn’t leave enough room for scepticism in this particular case. But it’s worth remembering that in other cases there’s a difference between towing the line and reporting words as a statement of fact. The fact being that the words were said but not necessarily that the words are true.

Regarding the WMD thing, was it proven the Times was aware of the mistakes and published anyway? Or were they also deceived by the government like everyone else?

I’m not American and I almost never read the Times, so I don’t have first hand experience. But I hear the same rhetoric about outlets here in Canada.

My take is that yes, outlets can have bias on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean we should write them off completely. Trust in media is at an all time low, journalism is struggling to survive. There’s no media outlet in the world that doesn’t make the kinds of mistakes that you outline here. The key is how do they respond to them after the fact. Do they issue corrections? How quickly? Where do they put them?

Some of your ‘evidence’ also doesn’t seem like journalistic malpractice. For example, are they obfuscating poor sources, or not revealing an anonymous source? The latter is not malpractice. The former doesn’t sound bad either… Who decides if a source is poor? Maybe the source didn’t have much to contribute so that’s why there wasn’t much detail on their background. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong, just that as an outside observer that point doesn’t seem very bad.

Anyway, I do think it’s important to be aware of any biases in the media we consume, so conversations like this are important. But my fear is that if the conclusion is to wholesale stop trusting the media anytime they make a mistake or a bias is revealed (I.e all media outlets), we’re going to be even more fucked than we already are.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/palm-oil#:~:text=Impacts,-© Hartmut Jungius&text=Large areas of tropical forests,including rhinos%2C elephants and tigers.

NPM is the way. SSL without ever needing to edit a config file.