And in some cases even earlier. IIRC there was a study a few years back about how there's a very visible tendency of the average age of puberty has dropped significantly in the past 100 years - specifically, measured in average age of first menstruation, which was as high as 16-17 in the mid-1800s, dropped to around 14.5-15 by 1920, and further dropped to around 12 by the 1980s, and latest data, based on the UK NHS reports from 2010, now put the average at 10.5.
Now, I won't get into conspiracy theory regions as to WHY it's happening (to my knowledge none of the theories, let them be based on reality or conspiracies, have been actually confirmed to a level where the scientific community is comfortable pointing fingers), but it is happening.
And a very interesting aspect of this is the legal framework. The age of majority - which is often tied to the age of consent, as well as the age of full bodily autonomy (sans edge cases where the person doesn't have the mental capacity to make autonomous decisions) - has stayed relatively static at 18 for the past ~200 years, while the closest related biological event, puberty et al, in ~160 years has dropped over 1/3, or nearly 6 years... Basically, 160 years ago you entered puberty, and a year or two later you were considered an adult, able to make life altering decisions. Today, you go through puberty, and might still need to wait 5-6 years to be an adult...
Now don't get me wrong, put the pitchforks down, I'm not one of those weirdos who wants to lower the age of consent. I'm just pointing out that biology has changed over the course of some 8 generations or even less, and our legal code regarding a lot of things affected by puberty has stayed rigid.
And that just doesn't sit well with me. 160 years ago, we considered kids a year or two after hitting puberty to be grownups, even though they would've learned maybe 1/10 by that time that today we get taught in the first 4-6 years of school. Yet today, with much more learning about every single topic, including human sexuality et al, we don't consider these human beings capable of explaining to a specialist that they're feeling body dysphoria, that they feel more comfortable in a gender role different than the one assigned with their birth sex? It's not even making a unilateral decision, it's not "mum I wanna be a girl", it's them explaining to a medical professional how they're not feeling comfortable in their own bodies!
This just further reinforces my belief that the current approach to politics - which dictates regulations like trans people accessing appropriate care at the right ages - simply doesn't work. We keep electing old farts whom are simply detached from reality, having them debate topics they don't understand, ignore their constituents.
Even in the early days (97-01), they've used venture funding (approx $80mil) for the DVD mailing business.
And the reason they didn't really go the VC funding way later is because they had an IPO in 2002, which meant instead of relying on VC funds, they took on massive amounts of debt to allow the takeoff of streaming.
Step 1: groundbreaking service comes in that fills a market hole
Step 2: people flock to service
Step 3: service gets VC funding to continue operations, subsidising the users
Step 4: service gets "copied", competitors crop up, use VC funding to eke out their own marketshare while making things worse for everyone but themselves
Step 5: expansion plateaus as interest in service generalises (basically, everyone who could be interested, is already using it)
Step 6: VC funding depletes, company has to start making a profit - leading to price hikes, which is followed by other players in the market as that's how capitalism works
Step 7: price hikes not being enough, service tries to capitalise on their userbase (think restricting features to a higher paid tier, introducing new tiers that strip away features, introducing ads, etc.)
Step 8: market is saturated with plateaud services, user movement is minimal, and everybody hates it because it's expensive, and reintroduced the same problem the initial innovative service meant to fix.
A good reverse osmosis filter system is cheap (maybe $400-500 with installation and extra filters for a fancy system), and can improve even the best municipal water sources.
Yep, that position is either kept open for a specific candidate (probably already working at the company), or it's only there for legal requirements...
If you want a NAS specific case, check on AliExpress - a bunch of $200-300 options with SATA backplanes, EATX support, and your typical 8-16 front-loaded disk bay with disk caddies.
$10 says it's a "repurposed" sex hot and it would've taken a whopping week for a more techy student to hack it and say profanities or something similar...
Worry not, even though possession of CSAM should be a permanent bar; I'm sure Trump's lawyers are already writing up something to get the Tate bros citizenship!
The other half is truly so clueless that they think "both sides are the same and we need to find the middle ground". Which in itself is a major bastardisation of the doctrine of compromise (which says that in a sane system, often the best solution is a compromise between differing parties).
However that doctrine cannot apply to debates about human rights, as one cannot compromise on those.
Authentik and Authelia are two of the top most quoted solutions, but they aim to be an "everything in one" package, with tons of features a simple homelab will rarely need. They're aimed more at enterprise-like setups.
On the other end of the spectrum you have e.g. Pocket-ID, which only does OIDC by itself (you can hook up an LDAP server as user database though); but that tradeoff means it uses little to no CPU time, and, in my experience, around 130MB RAM. Given RAM is getting more expensive than gold, one needs to consider memory footprint, especially for older homelab setups. We can't all be running 256GB nodes after all.
So instead of hunting the mythical "best" solution, decide what features you really need, grab a list of providers that cover those features, and compare them to see what fits your needs best.
And in some cases even earlier. IIRC there was a study a few years back about how there's a very visible tendency of the average age of puberty has dropped significantly in the past 100 years - specifically, measured in average age of first menstruation, which was as high as 16-17 in the mid-1800s, dropped to around 14.5-15 by 1920, and further dropped to around 12 by the 1980s, and latest data, based on the UK NHS reports from 2010, now put the average at 10.5.
Now, I won't get into conspiracy theory regions as to WHY it's happening (to my knowledge none of the theories, let them be based on reality or conspiracies, have been actually confirmed to a level where the scientific community is comfortable pointing fingers), but it is happening.
And a very interesting aspect of this is the legal framework. The age of majority - which is often tied to the age of consent, as well as the age of full bodily autonomy (sans edge cases where the person doesn't have the mental capacity to make autonomous decisions) - has stayed relatively static at 18 for the past ~200 years, while the closest related biological event, puberty et al, in ~160 years has dropped over 1/3, or nearly 6 years... Basically, 160 years ago you entered puberty, and a year or two later you were considered an adult, able to make life altering decisions. Today, you go through puberty, and might still need to wait 5-6 years to be an adult...
Now don't get me wrong, put the pitchforks down, I'm not one of those weirdos who wants to lower the age of consent. I'm just pointing out that biology has changed over the course of some 8 generations or even less, and our legal code regarding a lot of things affected by puberty has stayed rigid.
And that just doesn't sit well with me. 160 years ago, we considered kids a year or two after hitting puberty to be grownups, even though they would've learned maybe 1/10 by that time that today we get taught in the first 4-6 years of school. Yet today, with much more learning about every single topic, including human sexuality et al, we don't consider these human beings capable of explaining to a specialist that they're feeling body dysphoria, that they feel more comfortable in a gender role different than the one assigned with their birth sex? It's not even making a unilateral decision, it's not "mum I wanna be a girl", it's them explaining to a medical professional how they're not feeling comfortable in their own bodies!
This just further reinforces my belief that the current approach to politics - which dictates regulations like trans people accessing appropriate care at the right ages - simply doesn't work. We keep electing old farts whom are simply detached from reality, having them debate topics they don't understand, ignore their constituents.