I legitimately don’t understand your question. If you’re asking if the cost to improve safety may be too great in some cases, yes that is true in some cases. But you haven’t made that case in this specific instance yet.

so by your logic since nothing is as bad as [choose any cause of death], we should just… give up on improving safety?

I was giving them the chance to clarify their point, because they didn’t say anything beyond “nothing is safe” as a justification for poo-pooing an attempt to improve safety. Hence the question, which they have so far declined to answer themselves.

The point ContrarianTrail was making is that there is some risk in nearly everything. People have died as a result of garden tools, cars, house pets, shaving, buckets, toothpicks, baseball, etc. Here’s a list.

Yes, we all know “nothing is safe”. it’s a trivial point to make, and if that’s the only part of the situation you mention (as the person above did) you’re either not thinking very hard or are being deliberately misleading.

I prefer pull cords on my blinds, and I find the new regulations annoying. But I guess some federal agency decided they aren’t so useful that it’s worth the risk to children. And it would be selfish to be all upset about it if it saves some child’s life.

Exactly, it’s not that hard to understand. Pull-cord blinds cause deaths, and other reasonable alternatives do not. Framing the discussion to “100%” and dismissing accidents/deaths as anecdotes, to me, seems deliberately misleading. Yet you accuse me of being inflammatory by asking a follow up question. okay.

contextualize how?

Are you saying we should not have safety regulations just because we can’t make everything 100% safe?

so say we all

right out of that movie Toys.

i think you could probably do this with just about every crime-drama show.

at least on Apple TV you can adjust the audio offset in the plex player. I think it’s a universal feature, give it a shot.

Star Trek: Teen Discovery

the dude asks about SSD cash for torrents and your multimillion-dollar answer is “raid”. lol

as people have already pointed out multiple times, what OP wants is something like mergerfs or unraid which can handle files on SSD cash and then move to spinning disks later.

wtf does raid have to do with anything here? yeah, sure, I’m the slow one.

or you could, you know, think about it for a second from their point of view. and they have already clarified this in other comments.

what is the point of faster download if you just have to do another entire copy after that?

but if the disk is actually bottlenecking at 40MB/s it will still take time to copy from the SSD. That plus the initial download to SSD will just end up being more time than downloading to the spinning disk at 40MB/s in the first place.

what OP wants is to download the file to a SSD, be able to use it on the SSD for a time, and then have the file moved to spinning disk later when they don’t need to wait for it.

this is just adding an extra step to the process before the file can be available to use. you’re just saving the copying to the HDD until the very end of the torrent.

can you copy files to it from another local disk?

agreed, I think there is something else going on here. test the write speed with another application, I doubt the drive actually maxes out at 40MB/s unless it’s severely fragmented or failing.

incidentally what OP wants is how most people set up Unraid servers. SSD cache takes incoming files for write speed, then at a later time the OS moves the files to the spinning disk array.

deleted by creator

no shows are dying (yet), they are just moving to cbs studios.