rentar42

The problem with your attitude is ...

No. That's your problem with my attitude.

"Free speech" absolutists don't convince me with their hypotheticals.

Believe it or not: absolute free speech is not the end goal and not as valuable as you all believe.

Forbidding some kind of speech can be okay.

Because not forbidding it creates an awful lot of very real and very current pain. Somehow the theoretical pain that a similar law could create is more important for your argument, than the real and avoidable pain thatthis law is attempting to prevent.

but e.g. American free speech would be nonexistent

And I say that the specific American flavor of free speech is not very valuable at all.

Even if the state apparatus is bloated and needs to be improved, simply firing 10% of your workforce isn't going to magically improve things (especially when done so quickly). You basically can't know if you fire useful people or bloat. And for each "unnecessary" person you fire you also fire someone who was the only one in their department understanding their job and doing their actual work.

Don't you have it exactly the wrong way around?

Also, since the hate itself is already irrational, any additional "quirks" in that hate shouldn't be surprising anyone.

If the only thing I knew about a given law is that those three complained about it I would immediately and wholeheartedly support and endorse that law. It's probably awesome and badly needed.

I understand your argument and there's some truth to it. But on the other hand exactly these kinds of decisions (joining/leaving the EU/NATO/...) have an incredibly strong possible effect, so them being done only based on the decisions of some politicians that were elected on some promises possibly quite unrelated to that decision has its own set of problems.

That example makes sense to me, because it's an alternative to something like hosting a blog on some third party site: generate it statically and host the result somewhere.

I've got the same setup! What I love about authentik is that I can even add a Google login as an authentication method. That severely increases the spouse-acceptance factor, as they don't have to "remember yet another password" or "carry around another thingie". Personally I use a YubiKey anyway, but for others who aren't into it "for fun" or for philosophical reasons reducing the friction as much as possible is paramount.

That's a great answer if one already has a NAS (which is not unlikely, given the name of the community). But if that's not already present (or desired for other reason) then a simple media-PC with some built-in storage is simpler to set up.

I suggest to avoid the temptation to get one of the many cheap Android boxen meant for media playback from Ali Express or the like, as they have a strong tendency to be heavily loaded with malware. Definitely not all of them, but it's really hard to tell which specific one you'll get.

Now you make me feel old. In "the olden days" before streaming of media over the internet was as commonplace as it was now, that was the standard way that tech-savy people consumed media: Either on their PC or with some set-top box with built-in storage. I fondly remember my PopcornHour, which was basically a line of desktop-boxes that ranged from "basically a hard disk, video decoder and HDMI out" all the way to "can automatically rip your BlueRays".

A custom "source available" license that may not be as clear-cut as intended and depends on "we know it when we see it" by the authors of the license? You don't say!

I've not tried that myself, but AFAIK VLC can be remote controlled in various ways, and since the API for that is open, multiple clients for it exist: https://wiki.videolan.org/Control_VLC_from_an_Android_Phone

There's also Clementine which offers a remote-control Android app.