I don’t use any of these suggestions, but the ones I keep hearing *about are Quik and Fossify Messages.

Edit: accidentally a word

Thanks for the archive link.

If wages stay high but the price of goods fall, companies won’t make enough profit to pay their employees.

*FTFY:

Companies won’t make enough profit to keep the investors happy and giving their CEOs billionaire compensation packages.

I am beginning to remember what made me think Jellyfin wasn’t user friendly.

Maybe it wasn’t the user interface after all.

Tl;dr:

• PhotoPrism: Local AI with strong privacy but heavier setup.
• LibrePhotos: Same, but less polished, more community-built.
• Immich: Best self-hosted Google Photos alternative.
• Ente Photos: E2E encrypted, low-maintenance, most “plug and play”

although they can probably mitigate the effects by moving to one of their 500 houses that’s in a safe zone

That’s why they don’t care.

Climate change hits the poorest first and hardest (see: hurricanes in the Caribbean and SEA).

Billionaires can fly in, enjoy the sunshine, fly out and not get a drop of water on their skin.

And they’ll keep “outrunning” climate change on an individual level, and only feel it when it hurts their net worth*.

There is a viable alternative to the problems raised by Bill Gates in his irate letter to computer hobbyists concerning “ripping off” software. When software is free, or so inexpensive that it’s easier to pay for it than to duplicate it, then it won’t be “stolen”.

—Jim Warren, July 1976

I believe you. I feel that way about iTunes (trauma intensifies).

But Jellyfin doesn’t have that reputation.

We still have those?

I thought they all went into tech*.

I set up Plex on my mum’s TV and she can just push play. The UI is intuitive (read: familiar) to her.

Jellyfin has a reputation for giving users more control and customizability, but the other side of that coin is that it’s more “fiddly”.

My users don’t want to fiddle.

So Plex has downgraded to [insert the word below feature parity] with Jellyfin.

All of your comments in my inbox are immature attacks.

Since you’re not even trying to engage in an argument with me, I’m blocking you.

Wealthy capitalists, if they’re not based in the US

Are you talking about this part? If so, what I was saying was that billionaires moved to either the US or the three countries I mentioned.

That means the billionaires from China also did not move to Taiwan.

You can also look at the wiki for Taiwan’s billionaires. Only one was born in China and not Taiwan (Hong Kong, specifically), and I’m pretty sure he moved to Taiwan way before the events we’re taking about in this thread.

That would be… so lame.

why the fuck would you bring it up as a reason to think Ukraine isn’t losing?

I was bringing it up as a reason to think the case for Russia winning wasn’t a clear slam dunk.

Resorting to conscription to fill your ranks is not something you do when you’re “obviously winning”.

And before you make a claim about Ukraine resorting to conscription, too, at no point have I claimed Ukraine was “obviously winning” either.

This was the statement I was responding to:

It’s basically an island that all the wealthy capitalists ran away to after China imposed economic democracy.

Here was my response :

Wealthy capitalists, if they’re not based in the US, have moved to [Singapore (or Switzerland, or the UAE)], not to Taiwan.

Where was what I said dishonest or irrelevant?

Edit: reorganized for legibility

It’s possible, but he didn’t say that, and our argument continued without your help.

It is weird that you’re white-knighting so hard for him.

Why are you here?

I was saying that the billionaires were not moving to the island of Taiwan.

You’re talking about US Empire, which, as mentioned in my other responses in this thread, is irrelevant to the physical movements of billionaires.

Even if Taiwan declared itself to be US Empire island #76, it would not change the fact that billionaires did not move to the island of Taiwan.

The NPR article I linked above was citing a Russian source.

The AP article was citing Russian legislation, which I assume (and I could be wrong) is public record.

I usually try to cite multiple sources because one or all may be biased, but it’s less likely that multiple sources will misrepresent reality in exactly the same way.

It is possible, but it is less likely.

I quoted all three in my original response, and he only responded negatively to the one based in UK, implying that he considered the other two met some minimum standard of quality.

He also quoted those same sources in his responses to me. If he thought the same way you do, I would have expected him to dismiss them outright, like you are.