The player does have a large effect on both those things. A player that supports the codec will not need server hw accept and hdr conversion as it will direct stream. A big issues is these codecs can cost money. So if the player doesn’t come with it the player needs to pay for it, something plex may be doing for those that purchased their subscription.

The same price must be charged for products purchased with credit card or cash. Otherwise the card provider will withdraw their service from the retailer. So the credit card margin is added to every price.

Jellyseer is a jellyfin comparable alternative to ombi.

They sold a bad product that needs fixed, bad software shouldn’t get an exception. The warning icons were probably not compliant and should never have left the factory.

It’s worse than that, people will argue shipping good code is impossible. Good testing is hard, so it’s avoided for things like unit tests. Something that’s only equivalent to basic QA in manufacturing. Every software functions is a design change and the system needs to be fully validated and tested. That’s means driving the car, and not shipping the code and using the users cars to prove your design.

Broken software shouldn’t be accepted as much as it is. Especially in safety critical systems like cars, especially when they remove manual controls for things like steering, brakes, hand brakes and door handles. Fly/drive by wire is more dangerous when the software is unreliable. Mechanical linkages fail immediately or take a long time. Bad software fails in uncertain and potentially chaotic ways.

A glass may have a spec that allows it to be filled to the brim. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, especially when you want to run up stairs with it.

Your going to spill water everywhere.

Because there are so many small parts to a processor you need 99.99+% at most stages to stand any chance of mass production. In this context 60-70% is seriously impressive. Millions of things have to be done right to get this type of yield.

Your not doing your own research. Your likley not capable of doing such research. Your doctor also isn’t doing their own research. Your doctor does take the knowledge and guidance from those that do research after they’ve done it and it’s be reviewed and validated by national healthcare standards agency.

Much like documentaries much of the available information online that’s accessible and engaging is just entertainment wrapped packaged like your learning something. Especially when your sources lead you to think herbal medicine is a better alternative.

The stuff that works in herbal medicine have been studied and improved in modern medicine. The two can’t and shouldn’t be equated. Anyone claiming herbal medicine should be respected and not condemned is a crook and/or idiot. Most proponents are crooks, trying to sell things they know or don’t care if they work.

Things like paracetamol and lithium have a basis in herbal medicine. Paracetamol was improved to stop the horrendous damage the herbal medicine did to your kidneys. Lithium was quantified and controlled to minimise the impact of taking a toxic mental (Lithium was sold as natural healing waters found in springs, it was scientist investigating these waters that identified lithium as an element), newer less toxic medicines are now available for these conditions.

Medicine displaced herbal remedies. The regulation of medicine means the only practionationers of herbal medicines are unregulated crooks.

In this situation a hub is still better. You can pack all the stuff away plugged into the hub for easier set up. If your plugging that all into your laptop, you’ll need to plug it all back in again when you move.

Not all patents are good. But a patent system is good. It could be better but the general concept is not flawed like the person I was responding to suggests.

The physical object isn’t what is patented in this case. It is the method to create the object that has a patent. One that can’t be reversed engineered as it isn’t part of the final product. You could only reverse engineer it if the process was not novel or not obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field. If both of these conditions are true then the patent should not have been granted.

Patents are not inherently bad. This is a bad patent. Patent laws don’t have to be changed, because this patent shouldn’t have been granted. The issue is ineffective patent reviews, not patents. Getting rid of patents is not a good idea. If you think it is you probably don’t have a good enough grasp on what a patent is.

You can make something if you figure out how they did it because it was obvious. In this case the patent isn’t valid. If you have to develop a solution then the patent is probably valid. The patent is a reward for developing and sharing the solution publically.

If you still don’t grasp why patents are useful. It may be helpful to think of it like open source software. The patent is the code base that is freely accessible to everyone. This preserves the knowledge and lets others build on it. However, to incentivise people to make their code open source you provide protections that stop others from selling the same code you developed.

The incentive mechanism is why far more businesses produce patents than produce open source code.

If you remove patents businesses stop funding internal r and d overnight. It increase the risk and reduces the reward.

The patent system explicitly provides free access to knowledge. The patent is the knowledge that would be kept secret otherwise.

You would still have monopolies, except things like the ingredients to medicines would be unknown.

Patents do provide some value. If there were no patents than companies would make their technological development a a secret and not share the work with the world.

The patent systems exchanges knowledge and technology development for a temporary monopoly on the technology. It means a company can publish the ingredients to medicines, methods of manufacturing etc. if they didn’t have the patent system they would keep these secret and if a business folded this knowledge would be lost.

Probably better to make those submitting false patents pay a large fine.

Whenever you get a new router or move somewhere, change the WiFi access point name and password. Set it to the same line you used previously. That way all your devices will connect to it without changing anything.

Use a new unique name and password. Never keep the one that is printed on the back of the router. You can make the password easier to share by making it a few words and numbers. Still very strong, but much easier to say aloud to someone.

It was very likely a designers decision. It forces the use the use case they wanted; wireless mice should be used wirelessly. I would bet they fought marketing and management to get this on the final product.

Marketing would want the mouse they can advertise as being useable with and wireless. Female ports are easier to mount and manufacture with they have depth to set the socket. So a plug on the front is much cheaper and easier to manufacture.

The fact the charging cable doesn’t get used in motion means it will last longer and you wouldn’t have people useing fraying cables on the front of their mouse.

People with exploits available that are unpatched are waiting for that end of support. It increases the value of their unreleased exploit.

A small computer, large capacity ssd and two WiFi interfaces (2x usb dongles, or dongle plus usb).

Small computer could be anything: raspberry pi (or generic and), nuc mini pc or laptop. If you want to use it without a plug you’ll need to add a battery, usb c powered devices could be more convent to power from a battery.

A ssd is better for this use case. Not because it’s faster, but they are more resilient to being knocked about and dropped. They are also much smaller, especially M.2, and aren’t fussy about how they are mounted.

The two WiFi interfaces would allow you to create a WiFi bridge to access the internet through a WiFi network and access your media server. It would need some configuration, you may also need to have the computer act as a router if you want to use multiple devices without reconfiguring.

It may be easier to have your device act as a WiFi hotspot and have the media centre automatically connect to it. This would make it difficult for multiple devices to use it simultaneously, and you could accidentally allow the media centre to do all its updating and downloading over your mobile connection.

This type of thing is going to be expensive and troublesome to configure unless your already experienced with that sort of thing.

I think a better solution, especially if you already have a media server. Is to set your media server for external access.

To get media when you don’t have internet, buy a large capacity flash drive (or external ssd/hdd). When you have access to your media server download all the content you want on to the drive. I think iOS jellyfin can do this without much modification.

Once out of range of your media server. Delete the content you’ve watched on your device (iPad) to free up space. Connect the external drive through the usb port on the iPad, copy over the next lot of content you want to watch. Disconnect and then watch the content.

Jellyfin can download the content, but you may need another app to play it when you don’t have access to the media server.

This approach lets multiple people access a much larger amount of media, effectively simultaneously. It doesn’t require a large amount of often expensive local device storage - you use cheap external storage. It much less expensive if it breaks or gets lost and has very little configuration -if you already have a media server running jellyfin.

No it doesn’t, or at least it didn’t for years if that has changed recently.

No one that knew about this was talking about it or doing anything about it.

The reality of the situation is only three organisations are capable of producing fully fledged browsers. Google, Apple and Firefox. Every variant, spin and de-whatever is nothing compared to developing a browser. All the chrome derivatives had this in them, arbitrarily execution of code from google. Code that wasn’t included in the binary when you downloaded or updated it. The sort of thing a virus would do. The sort of tool you would use to compromise the security of a system.

If you want a de-googled chrome the only option is safari, it’s chrome before google got its hands on it. If you want properly open and accessible browsers you need to use something else entirely like Firefox.

De-googled chrome is a myth.