But all of this is either compatible with a conservative reading, or requires more analysis than most conservatives are putting in. I mean I doubt Musk read the Picard books.

But then you go on to mention stuff like family tradition, which is literally a key value for conservatives, especially when it involves joining the military.

Or people being well fed, or valuing self-improvement? Think about all the rightwing grifters who go on about self improvement all the time, or how they claim that communism killed 15 vigintillion people from starvation and only CAPITALISM can feed the world. Conservatives don't want people to be starving, starving citizens are the sign of a poor society. It's okay that the Federation doesn't use money because it is post-scarcity thanks to replicators, a technological solution to the issue of feeding the poor. This is perfectly compatible with the techbro mindset that tech is the solution to all our problems, and isn't challenging to those who believe that socialism is impossible without advanced post-scarcity technology.

What I'm trying to get at is that all the aesthetics are there for a conservative to read it in a way that is compatible with their ideology, in much the same way that a liberal will read it as a triumph of liberalism or a leftist can interpret it as socialist. It isn't challenging to those ideologies, because it's vague enough and alien enough to not map 1-to-1 onto any modern political system.

I do think people get caught up in hating Epic, but the difference is that if any of those developers felt like releasing on another platform, they could. The "exclusivity", such as it is, is just happenstance. Whereas Epic's exclusives are largely actual contracts.

99% of the games on that list are small-time indie games that only release on Steam because that's where the market share is, and they probably only have the dev capacity to support a single platform. Steam also has a lot of API support for devs. Those games exist on Epic too, but when people complain about Epic they aren't complaining about those games, they're complaining about bigger games that are artificial exclusives, timed or otherwise.

Steam offers the better customer experience, and Epic can't compete with it, so instead they just buy exclusivity rights to games. It's arguably anti-consumer, and definitely different from those games that just happen to only be available on one platform or another.

I just don't understand why you want to copy-paste ChatGPT. Surely the parent commenter could access ChatGPT if they wanted, so you're not bringing a new perspective. If "content" is all that matters, you could generate a thousand different ChatGPT responses and reply to their comment with each one, but that's not acceptable. Why not?

People come here for a conversation with other people, and copy-paste ChatGPT responses don't actually contribute to that. If all they want is information/content, there are better places to find it. They could use ChatGPT, sure, but they could also use Wikipedia or even an economics textbook. It's up to them. Even if they use ChatGPT, they'd probably prompt it a few times in a few different ways to get the best info for them.

If you really want to use ChatGPT in your responses, why not add your own voice? When I suggested commentary I don't mean that you should just prompt ChatGPT into pretending to be a human, I mean that you should add your own perspective. Editorialize. Pull out the good bits.

Because if people want to see what ChatGPT says, they can ask it themselves. You're not contributing anything by copy-pasting from ChatGPT. If you have commentary on what ChatGPT had to say, that could be different, but you literally just used ChatGPT's output as your whole comment.

Why would they be?

I may be missing something—I wasn't sure what they were so I looked them up and I found the Wikipedia entry, which makes some mention of medieval lore of them being similar to incubi, but nothing about them being able to change sex at will. Alps don't exist in D&D either.

I would rather X didn't get access to deadly neurotoxin, thanks

IPv6 is actually widely implemented. Home ISPs are mixed on providing IPv6, but mobile providers widely embrace IPv6, some even running IPv6-only networks that rely on translation services to reach IPv4 destinations. T-Mobile is IPv6-only for example

What is TrueNAS adding to this arrangement? Generally when people run two different servers at home, they keep the VM drives on the hypervisor and just use the NAS for storing bigger things like media files. Hosting VM drives over iSCSI works in an enterprise environment, but if you can't guarantee uptime for your storage solution then all you're doing is adding failure modes.

It seems to me that your best bet is to go down to one server, which means cutting out either TrueNAS or Proxmox. Both can handle both storage (ZFS included!) and VMs, so ultimately it's a matter of which you like better.

Alternatively, if you're hosting other stuff on your NAS, you could consider keeping both servers but just getting a few SSDs to stick in your Proxmox mini PC to serve VMs. That may or may not be viable for your situation, but it's worth considering.

I would really advise against Replika, they've shown some scummy business practices. It seems like kind of a nightmare in terms of taking advantage of vulnerable people. At the very least do some research on it before getting into it.

How does moderation work in this scenario? Does it fall to instance admins to moderate, and defederate/ban anyone who is causing problems for the global community? That seems like it would amplify the moderation burden significantly

The devs don't stop anyone from running their own instance, like most of the Fediverse they just won't federate their own instances with hateful ones.

I'd recommend Wireguard over OpenVPN, it's much faster and just generally more efficient. Notably, it also handles network changes better, and reconnects in seconds rather than minutes. It seems like it would be a much better fit for your use case.