There are a lot of russian speaking estonians in general, not just in the east. Tallinn has quite a big population for example (Tallinn has basically 30% of the population of the whole country).
sudneo
joined 1 year ago
After your and the other commenter's post I had to go check, I didn't know she was in Scientology. Wow, that makes it even worse. Personally it is just her facial expression range (that is, a very narrow one), that irrationally makes her unlikable to me. I thought it was a good character representation in the first season of Handmaid's tale, but then once I realized that it's how she plays every character, or in every situation...
Gal gadot and Elisabeth Moss for me. Also not a fan of Jason Momoa/Chris Hemsworth type of guys. Anything with them in the lead and I generally nope out. It has to do with the plain, flat, repetitive characters and lack of depth, not the physique (for example I respect dave Bautista evolution).
Absolutely! In Bruges, Banshees of Inisherin, but even older stuff. I am a weirdo and like the 2002 Phone Booth, for example.
Was there a vegan angle to this, or what?
Yes, the whole discussion is around antitrust, and he thinks republicans have a chance to do better than democrats there. There is nothing to "bro" about, it's pretty clear from the context. If he said any of that before the election, I could vaguely read an endorsement for single-issue voters. Saying republicans are better than democrats in fighting antitrust after Democrats shat their pants about it, doesn't sound an endorsement to me.
The rest of this comment is out of topic. His focus (and his company focus) has always been on a specific political area. So there is no expectation that he would address the whole political scenario, when he was talking about that narrow area.
But he went out of his way to demonize the democratic party and somehow hold the Republicans up as the defenders of small business
So this is what bothers you? A completely legitimate critique of the democratic party? Well, I personally cannot care less, but you do you.
I see the issue as very simple: Him and his company work in the privacy space. Tech monopolies are a problem because captured people. Improving in this space is a win for privacy. Which is not something that is beneficial "in a vacuum", it's beneficial to all those vulnerable people that will be attacked by this government, or the next. he expressed optimism about the fact that republicans can do better than democrats here. Period. Naive, wrong, whatever. A legitimate opinion based on his reading of the last few years' trend.
No endorsement, no "pledge loyalty", nothing. Just a consideration. He also mentioned on his reddit account that ultimately actions will be what will count (as it is obvious). So to me this is legitimately a nothing burger. I cannot care less that people in US (and in many more places) live politics like a football game. I cannot care less that you or others got hurt because he criticized Democrats. They could and should do better, and then if the critique is unfair I will be there saying that he "goes out of his way" to criticize them. So far he clearly motivated his opinion with what Schumer did.
He didn't endorse the republican party.
The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn't mean he did anything of the sort. The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.
It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing.
It was in response to Trump's tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.
It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.
Andy praised Gail Slater publicly, and they even worked together.
The premise is already wrong. There was no promise or loyalty, not even close.
Kyiv*
Yes, forced conscription is horrible.
I presume you mean running Plex in host namespace. I don't do that as I run the synology package, but I can totally see the issue you mean.
Running in host namespace is bad, not terrible, especially because my NAS in on a separate VLAN, so besides being able to reach other NAS local services, cannot do do much. Much much much less risk than exposing the service on the internet (which I also don't).
Also, this all is not a problem for me, I don't use remote streaming at all, hence why I am also experimenting with jellyfin. If I were though, I would have only 2 options: expose jellyfin on the internet, maybe with some hacky IP whitelist, or expect my mom to understand VPNs for her TV.
(which doesn't harden security as much as you think)
Would be nice to elaborate this. I think it reduces a lot of risk, compared to exposing the service publicly. Any vulnerability of the software can't be directly exploited because the Plex server is not reachable, you need an intermediate point of compromise. Maybe Plex infra can be exploited, but that's a massively different type of attack compared to the opportunities and no-cost "run shodab to check exposed Plex instances" attack.
Objdct storage is anyway something I prefer over their app. Restic(/rustic) does the backup client side. B2 or any other storage to just save the data. This way you also have no vendor lock.