Self-hosted machine. It was basically my old computer I bought back in '09. It’s a i5-750 on a Asus P5P77. It started with the 4 GB RAM I hadn’t sold until I upgrade to 8. I used a borrowed Nvidia GT730 and a 1 TB HDD at first until I upgrade my main PC GPU and bought a new HDD for the server so now it runs in a 4 TB HDD and my old GTX 1060 3 Gb. It’s a beast for my needs.

• Jellyfin is the main reason I started my server. Initially it was so my mother could easily watch shows I would never illegally download. Until a realized it would be great for me too and friends. To not watch them…I mean, because that would be ilegal!

• Qbittorrent…shit…oh well :)

• Nginx, when I realized I could host my own development server and personal website

• Komga, when I realized I could have the same benefits of Jellyfin with books and comics.

• Tailscale, allows me to, among other things, use it as an online or LAN hard drive for me and people I like.

• Samba, see above. It also works to keep a nice share folder between my main PC and my laptop

The more time passes the more I realize self-hosting is the best idea ever. I get new ideias every day.

“Now it must be done…”

• unzips *

“Your house, ahahah, nice one! By the way, rent is going up. How much was ‘your’ raise this year?”

There’s a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it’s flawed.

I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don’t agree but I understand the thought process. It’s a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn’t make sense.

Mind you, I’m not trying to attack you, I’m genuinely intrigued and curious.

That’s not how fusion works…if it even worked already.

Those health issues while being a problem are in no danger of killing humanity. Wether they affect hundreds, thousands, even millions.

ONE really bad nuclear disaster can make a whole continent uninhabitable.

The risks are on totally different magnitudes.

There’s always a way to fail. Always.

There are no unsinkable ships. No matter how safe the Titanic is, keep enough of them on the sea and one will eventually sink the way least people expected. If life on Earth depends on a Titanic never sinking…we’re fucked eventually.

Life on Earth depends on no more than a couple on nuclear plants blowing up catastrophically.

I agree with everything you say. It really is spot on. What I don’t understand is how, with your awareness, do you still consider yourself pro-nuclear. Honest question, I really am curious.

That…makes no sense…

Dude, you realize a nuclear meltdown releases far more nuclear poison than a nuclear bomb. It’s not about the immediate destructive potential.

A nuclear winter would last at most a decade or two due to the dust thrown into the atmosphere by the explosions. A disaster like Chernobyl, while not even close in terms of destructive power, had the potential to release enough radiation to leave half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries, maybe even millenia. Chernobyl is still dangerous to this day while cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving.

And to think you could just abandon a nuclear power plant safely…

You realize used nuclear fuel is extremely hot and still radiating heat and has to be cooled for a long time. You abandoned one without safety measures and the pools cooling the used fuel would just boil and evaporate. The water gone would no longer shield the radiation and you’d have a ton of radioactive material shitting poison into the atmosphere and meltdown.

Some people don’t know shit about nuclear power and like to act condescending “it’s not like a nuclear bomb”. No, it’s far more dangerous. And all it takes is a couple of really bad accidents to ruin the planet. And Murphy’s law tells us those improbable accidents will happen eventually. That means with nuclear power, quick or slowly we are walking towards the abyss. When we reach it we fall and there’s no way out.

Actually, the traditional Jogo da Bolacha is also a thing. If you’re in Portugal and someone asks for you to join, YOU JOIN. It’s extremely rude for foreigners to refuse the Jogo da Bolacha. Specially if the inviter winks at you. It’s also good manners to announce you’ll loose the first few times, while you learn. If people are surprised by this just smile, lick your lips and say you’re the Cookie Monster. You’ll be accepted among us very quickly.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Oh, you’re a feisty one, aren’t you!

I work in a school. I laugh and joke a lot with the teens. Sometimes I forget I’m not one of them and I’m 40. I’m just as immature as them, just more experienced. A lot of my coworkers forget what it was like to be a kid and how boring most of us are. School sucks, remember?

I lost my last grandparent this Easter. She was much younger then my other grandparents. The 3 of them would be over 120 years old now. I’m a millenial, I’m 40.

I’m a Satriani fan and, while I totally disagree with you calling him a mediocre song writer, I can’t help but understand your point about Searching and Made of Tears. If that’s your sample of his music I totally understand your view.

Searching is just a catchy Whammy trick followed by an unending jam/solo. It’s very uncharacteristic of him. Made of Tears is not a bad song (one of the best on Super Colossal and it’s not a good thing) but is definitely off what I was used to hear from him when that album came out.

The thing is, if you want to know what Satch is about you have to hear what he did before Super Colossal. I like Super Colossal. But for me it’s when his fire died. Sure, you can still hear his genius there but only on the occasional song. For me Ten Words is the last song where you find that. One of his most simple songs. It’s an appropriate farewell. What came after is still good…but it’s not mind-blowing.

Super Colossal came out in 2006, you should hear what he did before if you want to know why he’s considered one of the most melodic guitar players ever. Is There Love in Space already has some signs of his “downfall” but you have to be Searching them (wink, wink).

Before that everything is genius and everything is different. I’d say, in my opinion, he hit his peak on the 2 albums before that (Crystal Planet and Strange Beautiful Music). But even before those two you have lots of material showing what he used to be about.

Steve Vai is maybe more original. It’s a matter of preference. But I’ve only felt about him the same way as old Satch on 2 albums. The rest is nice but meh. I am looking forward to their collaboration though, it gave me good vibes.

Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection

Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?

The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups

That’s your opinion. I’ve heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.

I agree that an “imperfection” doesn’t ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn’t mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn’t mean the lack of “imperfections” will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as “perfect” as it gets. But one wouldn’t call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn’t admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I’d respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.

It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.

I don’t mean to antagonize you, but I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).

All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called “imperfections”. A song like Satriani’s Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai’s Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don’t think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.

What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They’re perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton’s performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It’s not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn’t touch me. But it’s my “failing” not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what’s under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.

Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played.

More assumptions. You know this how?

It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different.

If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don’t think your assumption is correct.

Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like

And it’s not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it’s machine-like it’s because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can’t accept it’s just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for “liking machine-like music” and “they themselves prefer something with soul”. Can’t you see how that kind of statement puts other people’s tastes down while elevating their own?

How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they’d smile condescendingly and say “well, that music has its merits…sure…but it’s too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles”. We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That’s how people with the “soul” argument come off, intentionally or not.

Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack.

I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn’t). So, something to consider.

I really hate the “soul” accusation. It’s so arrogant and pretentious. Look, I get it, their music doesn’t tell you anything, it’s not your thing, it’s OK. It’s about you, it’s not about them. Not saying there’s anything wrong with you because of it. There’s a lot of great music I simply don’t like. It’s normal.

You don’t feel anything with their music. I do. Lots of people do. Is our “soul” bone defective? Are you the judge of musical taste? Can’t you see we laugh and cry with their music just as easily has you do with what you consider “music with soul”?

My experience is that the same people who accuse them of being 100% technical and souless are precisely the ones so fixated on the technique they can’t actually just see past it and just listen to the music itself. Do you think we get goosebumps because of how fast we see the dude fingers move?

Regarding the actual musicians. I can’t say much about Malmsteen because it’s not my taste but the dude singlehandedly created a new genre. I can’t put him down just because his music is not my preference.

Satriani is certainly the most melodic of them. The guy launched multiple great albums. Until the early 00s. Every album until then was simply amazing. Vai could only launch 2 or 3 with the same quality. But after Super Colossal he lost his edge. He still makes good stuff but never like what he made between 1984 and 2006. It was out of this world (wink, wink).

I do tech support in a school filled with old computers all connected with VGA. One day I’ll hang myself with one of those.