Anyone an expert in Synology here?

Synology's Hybrid Raid (SHR) is a funky little system, especially since it's built on standard Linux tools.

What I'm wondering though, is how data is distributed when you change the disks in the system.

Imagine I have 2x1TB drives and 2x4TB drives in a system.

• First it creates a 4x1TB "chunk" which is essentially RAID5. (3TB available)
• Next it creates a 2x3TB chunk which acts like RAID1 (although internally may be calculated like a RAID5 parity.) (3TB available from this)

Now let's say I replace those two 1TB drives with 4TBs (safely, preserving data, etc.), and tell SHR to expand to use the new drives. I can see a number of scenarios from this point:

• It mirrors the two new blocks into another 3TB chunk, giving me 9TB total. (3 from RAID5, 3 from first mirror pair, 3 from second mirror pair)
• It expands the 3TB mirror into a second RAID5 group, giving 12TB total. (3 initial plus 9 in the second group)
• It does the same thing and also rewrites the data on the (former) 3TB mirror pair to be striped across all four disks
• It expands the 3TB mirror to RAID5, *and merges it with the original 3TB RAID group, giving a single 12TB RAID5.
• Again it does the same thing but with rewriting of the data that was formerly just mirrored.

This isn't likely to be a huge deal, but I'd like to know how it works under the covers.

OK, I had a hard time coming up with a single sentence title, so please bear with me.

Let's assume I have a computer with a perfect random number generator. I want to draw from a (electronic) deck of cards that have been shuffled. I can see two distinct algorithms to accomplish this:

1. Fill a list with the 52 cards in random order, and then pull cards from the list in sequence. That is, defining the (random) sequence of cards before getting them. This is analogous to flipping over cards from a the top of a well-shuffled deck.

2. Generate a random card from the set that hasn't been selected yet. In other words, you don't keep track of what card is going to come up next, you do a random select each time.

Programattically I can see advantages to both systems, but I'm wondering if there's any mathematical or statistical difference between them.

This game...

I love it. I love how true it is to the (Bethesda, et al) spirit of the Fallout series. I love the humour, the clever touches, the obvious love with which it was crafted.

But holy fuck, the bugs. The bugs, the bugs, the fucking quest-breaking BUGS!!!

Also, the "FO4 too easy? We're going to make this incomprehensible" attitude.

Let's consider companions. First companion was Churchill, followed shortly by Archie then Arthur. I was travelling with Arthur when I finished Archie's questline, and then shortly after, I finished Arthur's as well. Then Arthur swapped his massive gun for melee, so I dumped him.

Unfortunately, I couldn't re-join with Archie. After every interaction, he goes into an unclickable merchant menu, and you can't get him to join you no matter what.

Back to Arthur then. I sent him to Biggs Airport, and...he's not there! FUCK!

Kiera? As soon as I didn't sign on, she went to a location I can't yet reach!

Fine, I'll solo it. Except that the Roundels are stuck in the basement of the bar, which breaks THREE SEPARATE QUESTS!

We'll see if 1.02 fixes any of this shit, but I honestly can't play anymore. Everything - EVERYTHING - in the game is broken for me now.

Hey all.

Canadian here. A number of years ago my family visited New Zealand, and while falling in love with the country and the culture, I also discovered the Hei Matau - the Maori fish hook.

This has haunted me ever since, and I want to carve one for myself. However, we've spent the last decade starting to understand the relationship between European settlers and the North American Indigenous people.

So what I do in my basement with carving tools is my own business, but I ask honestly if wearing a Hei Matau in public is considered respectful or appropriation. And also if the material matters in this context. (It would likely be from a tagua nut - "vegetable ivory" - although it's possible I could get some whale bone from my coastal friends.)

This is killing me.

We have a snippet of code on a web page. Users copy the code to a text editor, make a small change, then copy the modified version and paste it into a terminal window.

And it fails to run.

I've confirmed this happens with both Textedit and Notes, and also that copying from the web page and pasting directly into a terminal works fine (although without the necessary code changes).

It's something in the text editor copy; and there's no way to either "copy as plaintext" or "paste without formatting" into a terminal.

Does anyone know how I can work around this?

EDIT Apparently some (but not all) spaces (octal 040) are being converted to octal "302 240". I can't figure out how to stop it!

I created this post on my local server, calling for what I thought was reasonable action against a self-proclaimed threat to Canada.

Someone in the community disagreed (fine), and reported the post on their hosting instance (lemmy.world), which led to an immediate deletion of the post (on that single instance only).

Think is, I really don't feel that it was warranted - and neither do most of the community members over on lemmy.ca.

I realize that instances are autonomous, but is there an appeal process to potentially have this reinstated?

Yesterday I created a post on a regional community on lemmy.ca.

Fairly quickly thereafter, I got a DM saying that the post had been removed because someone who disagreed with me complained. Oddly though, the DM came from a @Automod@lemmy.world - not the server hosting the community.

Furthermore, I still see the post when I go looking - and there has been a bit of discussion about it.

So my questions:

(a) Can a post be removed from a specific federated instance without being removed from the original instance? (b) Is there an appeal process for removed posts? I'm sorry that the guy got all butthurt, but my post was sincere, measured, and (I think) reasonable. If it offended someone, they should discuss it.