• 0 posts
  • 16 comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: July 25th, 2026
  • Technology@lemmy.world•A 2GB Raspberry Pi 4 now costs 50% more than it did at launchbyeurodyne@piefed.worldBanned from communityEnglish
    11 hours

    And that is…?

    Edit: apparently, the cost had jumped from $55-$78. Still, at least $100 less than what it cost in 2016 when I was in school for an RPi 2. I’m having a huge amount of trouble finding scaler comparisons between RPi and standard server set up.

    Genuinely asking: for the Rpi fans out there, what’s it actually capable of nowadays? Can I run a Plex server off of a single RPi?

    I am looking to replace a 2011 iMac (i7-2600) as my Plex server, I’d like to know if a modern RPi could handle the load.

    Advice, please?

  • Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Reminder: do not watch HBO's Harry Potter.byeurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
    7 days

    I don’t see the difference between the two things you just described, no… except for the circuitousness of the path of the profit/value generation. The end result is the same.

    But the argument you’re making also makes a huge amount of assumptions about the individual versus about engagement in piracy by society in general. On the micro scale versus the macro scale. Is piracy of a particular piece of media ethical as an individual versus is piracy of a particular piece of media ethical at scale. The crux of your argument seems to be the value generation of “word-of-mouth“. So now you’re just arguing a matter of degrees and pedagogy.

    So you’re not really arguing about capitalism or piracy at all, now you’re arguing about passing undeserved value, and the methods by which that is done and how piracy is being co-opted via capitalism.

    And what this whole argument really is about is whether or not you can separate the art from the artist and still appreciate a piece of work, even though you find the artist repulsive. And none of this has to do with piracy at all, but whether you can find a way to consume an artist work without endorsing the artist. where piracy comes into the conversation is whether or not that is an acceptable means to that end, and people will always disagree on that.

    The whole “capitalism” chestnut isn’t a means to untangle that because piracy is, as I’ve said, mostly anti-capitalism, and isn’t self reliant on capitalism, so the logic of that argument doesn’t really work out. It’s mostly down to personal opinion, and there really isn’t any logic to that at all.

  • Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Reminder: do not watch HBO's Harry Potter.byeurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
    7 days

    Piracy is anti-capitalism. And while it may cost you something to send a file over the Internet, it doesn’t necessarily cost me anything. And if capitalism is producing something and selling it for a profit, piracy is the opposite of that: taking a copy for free, regardless of the method. Thus: anti-capitalism

    Just because of the method of piracy you happen to choose may cost you money doesn’t change those underlying facts. especially because it is perfectly possible to engage in piracy without engaging in capitalism whatsoever. just because in the example you have cited, you have chosen to commingle the two does not mean they cannot be mutually exclusive.

  • Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Reminder: do not watch HBO's Harry Potter.byeurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
    7 days

    There’s a bunch of flaws in your logic here, not the least of which is:

    There is no ethical Harry Potter consumption within capitalism.

    Piracy isn’t capitalism

    Edit: let me be more clear–

    You’re trying to resolve one ethical dilemma with another unresolved ethical dilemma: You’re trying to resolve: “Can one appreciate an artist’s work while acknowledging that the artist is detestable?” with the same logic as “Is digital piracy an ethical workaround to media capitalism?” and combine the two arguments into one solution: “Is it ethical to pirate Harry Potter media from HBO, even though I find both Rowling, HBO, and capitalism detestable?”

    It’s like asking, “As a strict environmentalist, is it ethical to drive my EV to the market if I know I had to charge it from an energy grid powered by coal plant (that I had no choice but to use)?” Because no matter how much personal opinion and moral relativism enters the ethical calculus, there’s a logical breakdown at the crosspoint of systemics, when individual participation merges into participation at scale, how much your choice is actually a choice at all, how much your choice would make any difference, and on and on…

    but before all of that, it doesn’t make any logical sense to even go down that path since trying to resolve one ethical dilemma with another - especially expecting a black-and-white answer - is just a bit silly.