Here's what I currently have:

• Ryzen 1700 w/ 16GB RAM
• GTX 750 ti
• 1x SATA SSD - 120GB, currently use <50GB
• 2x 8TB SATA HDD
• runs openSUSE Leap, considering switch to microOS

And main services I run (total disk usage for OS+services - data is :

• NextCloud - possibly switch to ownCloud infinite scale
• Jellyfin - transcoding is nice to have, but not required
• samba
• various small services (Unifi Controller, vaultwarden, etc)

And services I plan to run:

• CI/CD for Rust projects - infrequent builds
• HomeAssistant
• maybe speech to text? I'm looking to build an Alexa replacement
• Minecraft server - small scale, only like 2-3 players, very few mods

HW wishlist:

• 16GB RAM - 8GB may be a little low longer term
• 4x SATA - may add 2 more HDDs
• m.2 - replace my SATA SSD; ideally 2x for RAID, but I can do backups; performance isn't the concern here (1x sata + PCIe would work)
• dual NIC - not required, but would simplify router config for private network; could use USB to Eth dongle, this is just for security cameras and whatnot
• very small - mini-ITX at the largest; I want to shove this under my bed
• very quiet
• very low power - my Ryzen 1700 is overkill, this is mostly for the "quiet" req, but also paying less is nice

I've heard good things about N100 devices, but I haven't seen anything w/ 4x SATA or an accessible PCIe for a SATA adapter.

The closest I've seen is a ZimaBlade, but I'm worried about:

• performance, especially as a CI server
• power supply - why couldn't they just do regular USB-C?
• access to extra USB ports - its hidden in the case

I don't need x86 for anything, ARM would be fine, but I'm having trouble finding anything with >8GB RAM and SATA/PCIe options are a bit... limited.

Anyway, thoughts?

Looks like inflation is around 2.6% and holding steady/falling slowly.

This is good news for the stock market and could impact elections in November since we'll likely see a rally if rates do get cut in Sept.

This interview mostly goes over social policy, so I hope there's a follow-up with fiscal policy as well.

Here's an AI-generated transcript, which has some mistakes but hopefully is helpful. I tried copying it here, but it was too long.

Some interesting tidbits I liked:

• Liz challenged Chase on gender affirming care - his response was "no to surgery before 18, yes to medication if parents and doctors agree"
• open borders - wants an "Ellis Island"-style system where you register and then get to work, while still maintaining a strong police presence to keep out criminals
• courting those on the right of the LP - wants to work together on common causes, but will disagree on social issues
• vaccine mandates - no mandates from the government, but private businesses absolutely can; he thinks businesses requiring masks/vaccines is stupid because it limits customers

The whole discussion was pretty interesting, and I think it's interesting that Liz Wolfe came out as more conservative than Zach (apparently, Zach rarely discusses personal opinions).

So far I'm pretty happy with Chase as the candidate because:

• he's pretty well-spoken - reminds me a bit of Gary Johnson with less "aloof"-ness
• he appears confident and seems to do a good job justifying his positions on core libertarian principles
• very different from both Trump and Biden, so he should contrast well
• going after young voters - he's young, and he's highlighting issues that young people seem to care about, so I'm hopeful that'll resonate with young voters

I certainly disagree with him on some issues, but I think he'll be a good voice for the party. I would like to see more discussion on economic policy though.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Are you excited for a Chase Oliver campaign, or do you think the Libertarian Party should have made a different choice?

> Oliver's victory on Sunday night was a blow to the Mises Caucus, the right-leaning faction that took control of the Libertarian Party at the 2022 convention and that had orchestrated Trump's appearance at the convention. That faction's preferred candidate was Rectenwald.

I'm not a fan of the Mises Caucus, so I think this is hilarious.

> There was widespread media attention in recent weeks fixated on whether the Libertarian Party would nominate a prominent non-Libertarian like Kennedy or even Trump. > > Neither got anywhere close to winning. Kennedy was eliminated after the first round of balloting, while Trump did not even qualify for the first round and received just six write-in votes.

Good on you LP.

Now, I know next to nothing about Chase Oliver, but being gay and young will certainly set him apart from the old men he's competing against. I hope he'll get a good amount of media attention to spread the libertarian message.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Did the convention make the right call? Would one of the other candidates have been better? Would you prefer no candidate?

> Horse styles of the ’50s

> For crying out loud, Jonah! Three days late, covered with slime, and smelling like fish! … And what story have I got to swallow this time?

> You know what I’m sayin’? … Me, for example. I couldn’t work in some stuffy little office. … The outdoors just calls to me.

> Look! Look, gentlemen! Purple mountains! Spacious skies! Fruited plains! … Is someone writing this down?

> Sure, I’m a creature—and I can accept that … but lately it seems I’ve been turning into a miserable creature.

It has been a while since the last one. So...

Tell us what game you are currently, or recently played, greater than 6+ months old.

If the game happens to be on sale, a link would be a plus.

The link goes to a related post on another community so I don't have to duplicate it here.

Basically, I'd like to discuss tech options for a Reddit/Lemmy alternative. Here's what I've found:

• Iroh - early days alternative to IPFS promising improved performance and application control
• Appleseed - old-ish proposal for a distributed trust system - I'm thinking of using it for moderation (i.e. if you block/report similarly to someone else, that will get automated; you could also explicitly trust someone else [e.g. a CP-detector bot])
• TrustNet - builds on Appleseed - still reading through the paper to know what it adds over Appleseed, if anything

Goals:

• distributed storage - worried the fediverse will scale poorly (become too expensive)
• distributed moderation - power-hungry mods suck
• local-first - cache/host stuff you care about, reserve some space for preservation

Non-goals:

• make money - it's a hobby for now, everything would be FOSS
• image/video hosting - legal issues if you get random CP or something
• preserve all data - I'd rather sacrifice older/less popular content than lose users - community can run caching servers
• fediverse compat - P2P makes that difficult, but a bridge should be feasible

Thoughts? What am I missing?

Also, would anyone like me to post updates? It'll mostly be stuff from my research, if I post code, it won't be for a while (I have limited time).

I'm thinking something along the lines of the GDPR where companies must get consent to track you, and must delete your data upon request.

I see a few arguments here:

• yes, websites are like stores and have the obligations of a store to protect user data (IP address, HTTP headers, etc)
• no because the internet is "the commons," so no expectation of privacy (no expectation that the website follows your local laws)
• no because you're voluntarily providing the data, but you're well within your rights to block tracking attempts

So, some questions to spark discussion:

• does data collection violate the NAP?
• does sale of personal data (without a TOS in place) violate the NAP?
• if no to each of the above, is it worth violating the NAP to enforce a right to digital privacy?

I'm going to be overhauling my network over the next few months as I get ready for my new municipal fiber installation. I have a general idea of how to set things up, but I'm not an expert and would appreciate a few extra pairs of eyes in case I'm missing something obvious.

Hardware available:

• Microtik Routerboard - 5 ports
• Ubiquiti AP - AC-Lite; plan to add U6+ or U6 Lite once I get faster service
• some dumb switches

Devices (by logical category; VLANs?):

• main - computers and phones (Wi-Fi for now, I plan to run cable)
• media - TVs, gaming consoles, etc
• DMZ - wired security cameras, Wi-Fi printer (2.4GHz wireless g only)
• guest - guests, kids computers

Goals:

• main - outgoing traffic goes through a VPN
• media - outgoing traffic limited to certain trusted sites; probably no VPN
• untrusted - cannot access internet, can be accessed from main
• guest - can only access internet, potentially through a separate VPN from main

Special devices:

• NAS (Linux box) - can access main, media, and DMZ
• printer - accessible from main, rest of devices on untrusted don't need to be (I can tunnel through the NAS if needed); can potentially configure a CUPS server on the NAS to route print jobs if needed

Plan:

Router ports:

1. Internet
2. WiFi APs
3. main VLAN
4. untrusted (VLAN)
5. unused (or maybe media VLAN)

WiFi SSIDs (currently have a 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz SSIDs):

1. main VLAN
2. guest VLAN
3. untrusted - hidden SSID (mostly for printer) - 2.4GHz only

If the VPN causes issues, I would like the ability to move individual MACs to another VLAN (say, to media, or a separate, usually unused backup VLAN). Not required, just a backup plan in case the VPN causes issues.

This is my first time configuring VLANs, so I'm not really sure what my options are. Also, I'm not super familiar with Mikrotik routers (I'm not a sysadmin or anything, just a hobbyist), I just got fed up with crappy consumer hardware and wanted something a bit more reliable.

Does that sound like a reasonable plan? Is there something I could improve or suggestions you have?

Edit: DMZ is the wrong term, so I replaced it with "untrusted". By that I meant a local-only network, so no Internet access. Ideally I could access these devices from my main network, but they can't initiate connections outside their VLAN. However, that's not necessary, since I can tunnel through my NAS if needed.

Here's the YouTube video on Reason's channel (event starts about 10 min in), or you can download it at the link for this post.

There's no text transcription AFAIK, so I'll try my best to represent both sides fairly. I do have my own opinions here, so I recommend you watch the video (at least the opening remarks, which is ~35 min long, just after introductions).

Here's the prompt:

> Government must play a role in fostering scientific and technological progress by funding basic research.

The definition of "basic research" is a bit squishy, but the definition they seem to be going with is science without a specific goal, such as studying chemistry not to solve a given program, but to see where the research goes. The opposite is "mission science," which is research in a given area to achieve some specific goal important to the government, like weapons. They both agreed that the latter should be funded as needed (e.g. COVID-19 vaccine).

For the affirmative (Dr. Mills):

• private companies have little interest in basic research
• government funded basic research has produced immense value (example given: ammonia composition, which wasn't economically useful for 100 years so likely wouldn't have happened as quickly)
• government funded research is often economically viable, but more importantly, it has non economic value that private research doesn't provide (e.g. man on the moon)

For the negative (Dr. Kealey):

• publicly funded research "crowds out" private research (i.e. public research doesn't add more scientists, it just moves them from private to public sector)
• private research is more economically viable
• private companies need to fund research or they'll lose to their competition

And some prompts for discussion:

• What is your opinion on the prompt, should the government be funding basic research?
• Who do you think won? Do you agree with the voting? Why?
• If you're against the resolution, would you go further and prefer to not fund "mission science" as well? Why or why not?
• Should your government increase or decrease the amount it's spending on basic science research?

And a final question: do you want to see more of this kind of post?

I'm generally in favor of "hands off" moderation, as in allowing the community to decide which content to promote and which to discourage. I prefer to only step in if someone is violating the rules, either of the instance or of this community.

That said, this community has seen a lot of recent activity, and I'm worried that people who want to discuss libertarian concepts are being overrun. For example, this recent post has more downvotes than the most popular post has upvotes (by a large margin), yet I think this type of post is quite relevant to libertarians.

So I think we're getting a lot of non-libertarian (by pretty much any definition of the word) users in this community, and I'm worried they're not here in good faith.

So, I'd like to know what kind of moderation we'd like to see. I'll be reviewing voting records for posts to try to sus out who I subjectively think are here in bad faith (not planning on any bans though, just getting an idea) since I don't think votes will be particularly relevant for this post. Some questions:

• should moderators (so far just me) ban serial downvoters?
• should moderators ban low effort posts, regardless of applicability to libertarianism? (e.g. the recent memes and whatnot)?
• should moderators pin subjectively higher effort and relevant posts to promote similar content?

So far I've done no moderating because everyone seems to at least be civil, but I don't want this to become a "bash on libertarians" community or I'll just close it.

I created the community to discuss libertarian concepts because the rest of Lemmy seemed very leftist. I basically want something like a mix of /r/libertarian and /r/neutral_news, where citations are encouraged (if not required) and content generally focuses on how to solve problems with less government rather than more. That doesn't seem to be happening, so either we need strict rules or to just close the community down.

I like looking at ERN's articles from time to time because they cover so much that I'm all but guaranteed to learn something.

This article is about how, despite the wealth inequality figures, the US is still doing okay when it comes to wealth accumulation. Here are some of my personal highlights from the article:

> If I want to put a positive spin on the unpleasant wealth inequality stats in the U.S., I would again point to the net worth chart by age group: Some of our inequality is due to the natural wealth accumulation lifecycle. For example, within my age group (45-49), the wealth Gini coefficient is lower: 0.769. Americans are very good at building assets, thanks to their entrepreneurial spirit and generous tax incentives, like tax-advantaged retirement plans and capital gains deferral.

And later:

> It’s also worth pointing out that the Gini coefficient decreased in 2022 and now stands at the lowest level since 2007, though still far above the Gini in the 1990s.

And this is an interesting alternative to some of the rhetoric I'm seeing about the eroding middle class:

> If we compare the wealth distribution in 1989 with 2022, most percentiles gained ground. True, the 1%, 5%, and 10% lowest percentile had negative to zero net worth figures. The 1% poorest got deeper into debt. But the middle class is getting richer, albeit modestly slower.

There's a lot here, and my takeaway is that FIRE should continue to be a possibility to the middle class and above. It's not a weird phenomenon that only a lucky few were positioned correctly to achieve, but conditions remain good if you want to put in the work to love below your means and invest consistently.

Anyway, I like looking at graphs and deep analysis like this. Please share your thoughts.

Here's an archived version of the page.

What follows is largely a reaction to analysts predicting a recession and giving advice on how to adjust your investing strategy. The TL;DR here is: don't, they get it wrong more than they get it right.

Among PF enthusiasts, there's a saying that goes something like this: analysts have predicted 20 of the last three recessions.

Here's a chart for the S and P 500 long term after inflation. As you'll notice, long downward trends are quite rare, and the general trend is upward. In general, you can expect 6.5-7% long term after taking out inflation (~10% before inflation) if you buy and hold a broad stock market index fund. It seems almost every year someone calls for a recession, and this year is no exception. People were calling for recessions staring in 2015 or so, and look how that turned out.

Finance pundits and blogs like saying outlandish things like "recession will happen this year, liquidate stocks and buy X, Y, and Z," and if you're lucky, they'll throw some fancy charts up to make you think they know what they're talking about. But just know that all of this is for attention, they make money through ads or airtime, and some will try to sell you a book or something. The worst ones do a pump and dump scheme where they'll invest in security X, hype it up, and then sell when there's a bump in prices and average investors are left holding the bag.

Everyone seems to think they have some system for beating the market, but few professional fund managers manage to beat the index they benchmark their fund with, and even fewer can do it consistently:

> Across all domestic actively managed equity funds, 88.4% underperformed their respective benchmark over the last 15 years, according to an analysis of the S&amp;P SPIVA report. > > ... > > More than 80% of large-cap funds underperformed the S&amp;P 500 over the last five years. In 2019, 79.98% of large-cap funds underperformed compared to the S&amp;P 500, which was just a hair better than the five-year average.

So if you buy a large cap index fund, you'll do better than 80% of professional fund managers over 5 years, and you'll outperform nearly 90% of them over 15 years. So don't listen to their nonsense about changing allocation during a recession (or even whether there will be a recession) because you're statistically better off ignoring it.

To really drive it home, let's look at the linked article about Betty, the world's most unlucky investor, who invested only at the worst possible times (just before every major recession) since the 1980s:

> Even though she picked the worst six moments since the 1980s in which to invest, she made an average profit over the next five years of 20% and an average profit over 10 years of 100%. She doubled her money. Despite her disastrous, terrible timing, she was in the black after five years on four occasions out of six, and in the black after 10 years 10 times out of 10. > > Today, even though her total cash costs from those six investments totaled just $3,500, her portfolio is worth $17,500. That’s more than five times her investment. And that’s even factoring in losses this year, which have seen the global stock market — and Betty’s portfolio — fall 22%.

Just think of how much better she could've done if she had invested consistently, which means she would've bought at the lows and middles instead of just the highs.

If you instead listen to the pundits, you're likely to buy high (you'll miss the bottom, I guarantee it) and sell low (you'll sell early or late). Do what has worked well historically and buy and hold a diversified portfolio.

I don't know if a recession is coming, but I do know it'll change nothing about my investing strategy, other than perhaps how much I can invest. If you're nervous about the economy, make sure your emergency fund is funded and stay the course with your investing strategy, whatever your desired asset allocation is.

I was doing a little EOY accounting, and I wanted to see where I could afford to retire to with my current amount of investments. I searched a bit, but couldn't find anything good, and then I remembered the old /r/financialindependence sidebar.

Since I happen to be a mod, I went ahead and abused my mod powers and added it to the community info here. My wife is from another country, and we're not yet to the point where we could retire there, but we're surprisingly close, so I now have a new milestone to shoot for.

I don't know the methodology they use here, or how often it's updated, but I think it's fun to look around at options.

I remember another site that simply gave a list of countries in order from cheapest to most expensive and you'd enter your current assets and figure out where you could go. I thought it was a lot of fun to see what "upgrades" an extra year or two of working would get me, but I didn't bookmark it. If anyone can find something like that, please post it.

Anyone considering going expat? If so, does this resource seem accurate? Do you have others you like better?

I like to review my financial situation near the end of the year to prep for tax season, give to charity, etc. For any who cannot access the article or are too lazy, here are the things they recommend:

1. Tax loss harvesting
2. Contribute to retirement accounts
3. Convert IRA to Roth
4. Reassess risk tolerance
5. Review RMDs - only for 73+
6. Charitable contributions
7. Fund accounts for dependents

I check most of these, but more importantly I look at the new limits for 401k and IRA, as well at HSA limits for the upcoming year.

Is there something you like to do financially at the end of the year?