I’m interested in ksmbd… I chose SMB simply because I was using it across lunix/windows/mac devices and I was using OMV for managing it, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t switch to something better.
Honestly though, I don’t need faster transfers typically, I just happen to be switching out a drive right now. SMB through OMV has been perfectly sufficient otherwise.
SATA III is gigabit, so the max speed is actually 600MB/s.
My mistake, though still, a 4tb transfer should take less than 2hr at 5Gb/s (IN THEORY) Thank you @Max_P for pointing this out a second time elsewhere: 6Gb/s is what the sata 3 interface is capable of, NOT what the DRIVE is capable of. The marketing material for this drive has clearly psyched me out, the actual transfer speed is 210Mb/s
The filesystem is EXT4 and shared as a SMB… OMV has a fair amount of ram allocated to it, like 16gb or something gratuitous. I’m guessing the way rsync does it’s transfers is the culprit, and I honestly can’t complain because the integrity of the transfer is crucial.
I second this. It took me a really long time how to properly mount network storage on proxmox VM’s/LXC’s, so just be prepared and determine the configuration ahead of time. Unprivilaged LXC’s have differen’t root user mappings, and you can’t mount an SMB directly into a container (someone correct me if i’m wrong here), so if you go that route you will need to fuss a bit with user maps.
I personally have a VM running with docker for the arr suite and a separate LXC’s for my sambashare and streaming services. It’s easy to coordinate mount points with the compose.yml files, but still tricky getting the network storage mounted for read/write within the docker containers and LXC’s.
It’s not about assuming the worst, it’s more about being skeptical toward anonymous people on the Internet you don’t know, which I think is healthy.
The problem with JP is that even if you agree with one of his positions, he has almost certainly arrived to that opinion through his other terrible assumptions. By sharing his take, you’re not just sharing the opinion you happen to agree with, you’re sharing the underlying worldview he uses to justify it.
If you really do care about people assuming your support for him, you should use your own supporting arguments for the opinion you’re sharing instead of shoehorning his in.
I bought the app before it went free, so I am grandfathered in to a lifetime Plus plan; but if that hadn’t been the case I would not be paying for a subscription today.
Same, I don’t think I’d be paying for it otherwise
We are absolutely sleepwalking into the worst possible tech futures. It’s so ubiquitous now that even if you’re able to explain to someone how bad things are, trying to avoid this type of data collection would almost take Edward Snowden - level planning and obsession, so people just kind of give up before they even start.
The truth is that even the small actions you can take help make your data a little less valuable. They’re collecting so much data from so many people, that they really don’t have any easy way of verifying the data in your profile. So while there’s essentially no way to go back to when you had NO data, the accuracy and relevance of the data can be soured so that their use-cases for it are less successful. Assuming you’re already using an adblock or VPN to do most of your browsing, the biggest things are phone app data collection and purchases through a credit card via online portals as well as in-person. If you can avoid those, most of what they use the data for is a lot less successful. I would also avoid social media apps or sites where login is required, as they can scrape data on how long you look at any given image or ad with a pretty high degree of accuracy.
If you’re dead-set on perfection, you’re bound to feel helpless. But you should feel good about the little steps you take that 80-90% of people aren’t, because you’re that much harder to target via your data footprint.
After watching the video you’ve been citing, i think i understand where you’re coming from now.
You have to understand that absent the necessary context, ‘LTV isn’t objectively true’ can come across as a troll. Because while nobody was actually mentioning LTV, the assumption that people in the thread were thinking it - and misusing it as a way to quantify some value for stolen labor - is a bit insulting.
Unlearning economics is taking LTV as a theory of ‘exchange value’ and evaluating it on economic terms. That isn’t to say those critiques aren’t valid (they are), but it does two things that might mislead someone into thinking leftists don’t understand economics and mistakenly believe something that’s incorrect:
He discusses Adam Smith as having developed the labor theory of value first, then discusses it as something new when he gets to Marx at the end of the video. It makes it unintentionally seem like LTV is a Marxist conception when even he mentions that it isn’t
He starts the video discussing what ‘value’ is and how various scholars tried to define it, but then carries on with the rest of the video with the implication that ‘value’ is synonymous with ‘economic value’ and then evaluates Marx’s theory by taking that as granted.
These aren’t even a critique of him - he runs an economics youtube channel, it makes sense that he’d be evaluating these theories from that lens. But as you mentioned before, LTV (as Marx uses it) is useful as a political philosophy more than an economic model. Admittedly, I read Capital through the lens of metaphysics, so Marx’s discussions of calculating the values of various things came across less as explicit proofs for determining objective value and more like a critique of the economic theories of the time. I can’t speak to the intent of those assertions, but I can tell you that I (and many other) leftists do not evaluate labor-value-relations as quantifiable properties but as a way of evaluating the success and failure of capitalism to promote it.
You and I agree that ‘value’ as capitalism accounts for it, does not satisfy a idealistic definition of value; if economic value and abstract value were the same, there wouldn’t be that contradiction that you pointed to (e.g. the creation of economic value coming at the cost of environmental pollution, ect). Similarly, I view the employee-employer relationship as fundamentally in-tension, and I see “stolen labor value” as an accurate framing from the point of view of competing interests.
Sorry for mistaking your intentions, it wasn’t my intention to bully you.
True, and I think this is the point of contention that underlies the discussion. Currency is a stand in for exchange value, which is meant to be a zero-sum representation of ‘value’. The ‘transformation problem’ only exists as a need to reconcile that desire to quantify what is (IMHO) a fundamentally unquantifiable thing. Just ask yourself “what is the value of my own life”, and feel the humanity drain from you as you ponder the arithmetic.
The video this person is referencing critiques LTV through the lense of modern economics, which is built on quantifiable exchange values. I can’t speak to Marx’s intent, if he was trying to ‘prove’ a calculation for value and labor’s objective contribution to it (I read Capital through a metaphysical lense, maybe that was wrong of me), but I find this need to rationalize price values objectively to be a waste of time.
If a pragmatist heard this conversation, they’d be asking “what do you precisely mean by ‘value’?” To quote William James:
There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere - no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.
My tone is reflective of my mistrust of your intention, I am sorry if that is uncomfortable.
I wanted to remind people as to make political analysis not too easy by taking the mental shortcut of reducing current capitalism on the problems pointed out by Marx rendition of LTV.
On the contrary, I think applying theoretical models to current real-world economics is the only way to make sense of where theory and reality deviate. I don’t consider it a mental shortcut at all. The only prerequisite for it being a useful exercise is to be explicit about where those deviations occur when they arrise. When theories are publicly dismissed wholesale without elaboration it can cause confusion about what the intent is, and there are plenty of those who *do * aim to drive wedges between those in the working class.
I would have found it more interesting if you had been more specific in how you think LTV was being misused.
This is probably where your misunderstanding is, and it is the justification Adam Smith gives for the free market. If price is a measure of value (or an approximation), then the price must be fair (after all, you are paying for an equivalent of use value).
Marx evaluates price and value differently. He delineates ‘real price’ (the price to produce a good, including costs to the capital owner and the cost of labor) and ‘market price’ (which includes the profit extracted). He also defines value differently - Smith argues value is mostly subjective (which is a necessary condition for price to be a measure of value), while Marx argues that value is more specifically related to the labor that goes into it and the use-value, and criticized capitalist systems for fetishizing commodities and obscuring the role of labor. To Smith (and to those who take issue with the ‘labor theory of value’), value justifies the price (it is the price a buyer is willing to pay if they were perfectly rational), but to Marx, the use value is more firmly grounded in the commodity itself (a shovel produces the same amount of use-value whether it is sold for $5 or $25), and the market price they end up paying is dictated more by other factors than the value it represents. The capital owner, then, is adding to the cost to the buyer without adding to the ‘use value’ , which means they are either stealing from the laborers (since the product exists thanks to the labor that produces it) or the purchaser (who is being taken advantage of by paying more for a product than what the product’s use-value is). In either case, the owner is only able to do this by virtue of their ownership - of the means of production and the product of the laborers. They only part they play is choosing to put their capital to use and choosing to sell the commodity, and both the labor and the buyer operate at the risk of the capital owner withholding what others have produced (the buyer needs goods to sustain, and the laborer needs wages to purchase goods to sustain, but the capital owner puts their capital to work only to make a profit)
TLDR - People incorrectly associate LTV with Marx, even though other proponents of capitalism also make heavy use of it (namely Adam Smith), and they also assume that LTV is a statement about the price of a commodity dictated by the labor it embodies (e.g. I moved this boulder 200 miles, who is going to pay me for my value?) and instead it is a description of labor’s relationship to value and is generally agnostic to the degree. It is, as you said, a framework for understanding how labor relates to value. While ‘stolen surplus value’ is explicitly a marxist statement, ‘labor theory of value’ is not, and is often misunderstood anyway as a way of dunking on something marx does not assert.
… Ok? Why the neutral language all of a sudden? Yes, labor theory of value is an economic theory, which as a field of study is considered a ‘soft science’. Are you trying to say 'all economic theories and models are not objectively true"?
What am I missing here? Why would that be worth saying in response to the OP? It really just seems like you disagree with the ‘your stolen labor value’ claim in the OP, and are attributing it to the ‘labor theory of value’, and dismissing it as a soft-science (as opposed to dismissing it because you disagree with some portion of the theory you’ve neglected to mention).
My hunch is that you don’t feel confident enough in your understanding to make any kind of firm claim and are just dancing around making vague gestures toward ‘labor’ and ‘value’ definitions as a way of avoiding it.