I used Smart Audiobook Player to listen to an audiobook recently and it worked great.

This is a good tool for visualizing your raid needs from your capacity and total number of drives.

https://www.seagate.com/products/nas-drives/raid-calculator/

I’ll preface that I’m no raid expert, just a nerd that uses it occasionally.

The main benefit of most raid configurations is the redundancy they provide. If you lose one drive, you do not lose any data. It’s kinda obvious how you can have 1:1 redundancy, you just have an exact copy of the drive. But there are ways to split data into three chunks so that you can rebuild the data from any two chunks, and 5 chunks so that you can loose and two chunks. Truly understand how raid does this could easily be an entire college course.

Raid 0 is the exception. All it does is “join together” a bunch of drives into one disk. And if you lose an individual disk you likely will lose most of your data.

Another big difference is read/write speed. From my understanding, every raid configuration is slower to read and write than if you were using a single drive. Each raid configuration is varying levels of slower than the “base speed”

I typically use raid 5 or 6, since that gives some redundancy, but I can keep most of my total storage space.

The main thing in all of this is to keep an eye on drive health. If you lose more drives than your array can handle, all of your data is gone. From my understanding, there is no easy way to get the data off a broken raid array.

He might be, but I still get unpleasant vibes from how he writes.

Yeah, I’d rather not if he talks like he writes. Again, I am fully on board with his message, but he writes like someone who doesn’t know how to have a conversation with another person.

This writer seems like a proper neck beard. I 100% agree with most of what they say, but this feels like it’s straight out of 4chann

Edit: I read a few other articles of his and watch a few of his videos/interviews. This article is an extreme side of him apparently. I still think he is extremely socially awkward, he can’t hold eye contact for longer than a millisecond and struggles to answer questions in less than twenty words.

I do fully agree with almost everything I’ve heard him say. I just don’t like the way he says it.

It’s irrelevant if it’s in the terms or not if Sony knows for a fact that most people will not check the terms. It doesn’t matter if people should read the terms, it doesn’t matter how the terms are specified. That information is buried in a 10,000 word contract no one is going to read (the PSN Store terms and conditions is actually about 10,000 words, over an hour to read)

Customers could “buy” a product with the understanding that they owned the product in perpetuity. Sony then removed the product from the customer after the purchase without providing a refund.

You’re not even trying to understand the opposing view, so I’m kinda done with this conversation.

The fact that it’s video or a game is irrelevant to the argument, but I have amended my comment.

Second, I specifically said how they “understand the terms” because like .01% of customers read the terms and conditions before buying, even for super large purchases like cars and houses most people don’t read the entire contract. It’s a flaw in the legal system that allows companies to hide shady practices like what Sony is doing and force customers to just take it. Even if you read it, you’d need a law degree to properly understand what the document is conveying.

Most people understand the process of buying media as “I give you money, you give me content” not “I give you money, you give me a license to watch the content” it’s not explicit about the lack of ownership. If someone asked you "what movies do you own, hopefully you’re not going to be a smart ass and say “technically production studios are the only ones who own movies anymore”

You’re still jumping the moral argument and going straight to the legal one. I’m not arguing the legal one because it’s clear that privacy is not legal (by definition)

However if you sell someone a movie and hide a clever contract (that you know for a fact the customer will not read) in the deal so that you can invalidate the content at any time you feel like it, Don’t expect me to cry you a river when your customer bypasses your asinine contract by making a local copy for personal use.

If the terms are not explicitly explained in understandable language, then morally terms are non-existent and the deal should be revoked with both parties receiving their property back.

They should either be required to refund those purchases or they shouldn’t be allowed to remove them.

No disagreement there, but we live in a world where they absolutely can and will do this stuff and get away with it with no consequences. Until either of those two options you propose are reached, I see no moral issue with pirating a game content you paid for and can no longer play.

I’m not talking about the morality of a person who was already pirating it before, or pirate games videos not affected by this issue. Just a case where a person bought a game content from Sony, who then removed their purchase without compensation due to reasons beyond the terms and conditions the customer expected.

It kinda does add some validity to the argument. The seller can just take away a product without compensating you for it, in most situations we call that theft. If they are going to steal the content from you, morally I see no problem stealing it back.

It’s of course still illegal, but I wouldn’t say it’s immoral in this situation.

I misunderstood your point about no ad breaks, I thought you meant no advertising at all on videos.

That said, HD was just an adjective. I can edit and remove it if you want, but the point still stands that hosting anything at YouTube’s scale is stupid expensive. Even if you cut the data load again and go down to 480p it’s still crazy expensive that requires compensation to exist.

Something like 275,000 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube daily and users watch about one billion hours daily.

The video being in SD doesn’t make it free to host. YouTube still has to pay for the servers that store the videos and for delivering the video to you. And guess what! Most people don’t watch in HD and don’t even realize it.

Is it cheaper? Yeah. Is it free, no. Delivering just the audio for billions of users would cost more than most people will see in a lifetime ten times over.

Jesus fucking Christ, did it take your only two neurons sparking from ear to ear to generate that thought?

Youtube has a cost by hosting the videos for you and a billion other users to view. If you can’t see how that costs a shitton of money, you might actually be an idiot.

That’s kinda the point YouTube is going for. People who do not pay, and who use ad blockers are actively costing them money. People don’t realize how expensive it is to host an hd video that can be streamed to millions of people. There’s a reason no one has been able to seriously compete with YouTube.

It's very akin to reddit ~10 years ago. Grammar nazis, "um actually" and pedantic debates are everywhere. You just have to not engage and consistently remember the other guy is probably a sweaty nerd who cares way more than you do.