joshhsoj1902

One thing to consider with NFS is how stable your network is.

I've moved away from storing application files on my NAS and instead I store them locally where I run the application.

For things like jellyfin media or paperless files they can stay on the NAS and be accessed via NFS, but the config, db and other files the apps create as part of their operation, things can get into a bad state if the network drops at an unexpected time.

Instead I setup backup cronjobs that backup those files to the NAS nightly.

I agree with the other commenters regarding using the NFS share mounting right in docker compose. It does work great once you get it working.

Honestly I make the same assumption about a lot of his positions. Much of what he says or suggests policy wise doesn't hold up if you dig into it. So why say it in the first place?

Most of the platform is being built on people being angry and not understanding the systems that are being talked about.

From that perspective it makes sense that they need to continue to feed lies, half-truths and other nonsense to keep people angry.

My assumption is that this angle is the easiest to get people to be angry about. Most of his platform is getting people angry about things that don't exist or excited about solutions that won't solve anything. IMO getting people to be angry about a leadership change is more of the same.

It could also be that they were dependent on subsidised oil imports from Venezuela but over the last year Venezuela has drastically reduced how much oil it's sending.

On one hand I think it's ok for rental prices to go up as device prices increase. But that should never happen after a customer has a device, at that point the device price was already locked in. If they rent an additional device? Sure that one could cost more, but not the existing ones

Honestly I would love to see laws that make rental units without the option to purchase illegal. (With appropriate limits on how much the purchase option costs)

I agree that there may need to be better systems in place, but I'm not still convinced that the sitting government should have much direct control over it.

In the Han Dong case as you said he's now an independent and is unlikely to be re-elected. If there were a better official process by elections Canada or the RCMP ideally a byelection could have been called to replace him.

I just also worry that if that procedure is initiated by the government rather than a third party it could also be abused by a sitting government to force by-elections in favorable ridings to potentially boost seats.

I just struggle with all the criticism because no one is suggesting Elections Canada be beefed up to better handle this, they are instead suggesting that the Liberal government should be doing something. while it could be indirectly assumed that people are asking the Liberal government to pass legislation to reform elections Canada, this is a minority government, any party can table legislation that would aim at doing just that. As far as I know no party has suggested doing that.

Alternatively it could be assumed that the ask is for a minority government have the ability to expell elected MPs, which of course is not something that should be possible. What if a majority vote could expell elected MPs? What would prevent a majority government from expelling the entire opposition party?

None of this feels great 😞

So these are two different things right? Election interference is one thing, but MPs being compromised by a foreign government is another different thing.

The report you're mentioning about the 2019 and 2021 election interference not impacting the results was not a statement from the government but from third party review. I would agree that that third party review should have been initiated by elections Canada, but I don't think that the acting government should have had more involvement in that process, I think it should have had less.

When it comes to compromised MPs, it's more nuanced. If there is hard proof that an MP is compromised, then there is good reason to assume the investigation is over and that the information can be made public (and if they broke a law they should be held accountable by the courts). But if there is only strong suspicion that an MP is compromised that shouldn't be made public, but I think it does fall onto the leader of the party to make the call on what to do. The trouble is we're working with information that is part of an active investigation. It's not a good idea to let an governing party expell MPs from other parties on the grounds of them being involved in an active investigation, that to me sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by a governing party to expell rival MPs via baseless investigations that would not hold up in court.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that the Liberal party is mishandling election interference matters that fall under their control.

But election interference related things are not something that the acting government should have influence over. Elections Canada is independent and should be handling anything creditable, and the legal system should be capable of handling any prosecuting.

I strongly stongly stongly believe that the government should not be able to directly influence anything that can change election results.

Isn't that a photo a perfect example of what happens when we let private institutions provide public services (which is what you're suggesting be done instead).

Are you trying to say that things would be better if elementary and High school also had to be paid for directly instead of being publicly funded?

Do you think an acting government should be the one who sets the bar on what foreign interference is? That sounds like a huge conflict of interest. What's wrong with leaving it to the courts to decide?