It really does depend, so I mainly was speaking from my personal experience. But this is also why using both is recommended for *aar, because then you get the best of both worlds.

It’s understandable, sure. It’s also a little more complex up front. For me personally, the pros outweigh the cons and I’d much rather use Usenet over torrenting, even with the cost.

I definitely think it’s DMCA, unfortunately.

For indexers, I have DrunkenSlug, nzbgeek, and nzbplanet. My backbone providers are UsenetExpress, FrugalUsenet, and Giganews. You can use https://whatsmyuse.net to make sure you don’t have overlapping backbones.

The main benefit is that you don’t need to use a VPN, so you get full download speeds. Also the availability and download speed isn’t dependent on seeders, so more obscure content tends to survive longer on Usenet.

That’s not the problem here unfortunately. This is usually a complete take down on the server side, and has nothing to do with their location.

Usenet, while way better than torrenting, still requires multiple indexers and providers for this reason. I have 3 of each and rarely ever run into this issue except for very niche releases.

What benefit would a VPN give for OP’s problem?

Rivian hasn’t yet adopted NACS, these are CCS.

Yep, I just got local county fiber installed because Comcast would go down twice a day, at least. On top of that, I was paying out the ass for shitty upload speed and to remove the 1.2TB data cap. The local ISPs are about $60/mo for 1 gig up and down, compared to Comcast’s $130/month for 1 “gig” down and 30 meg up.

Similarly, I started using Grayjay after paying for YouTube for years. I’ll never go back due to the significant QoL changes that Grayjay offers.

Internet should be public like many other utilities.

If they eventually do have a search engine, it definitely can’t be trusted. GPT-4 loves to hallucinate.

A new announcement was posted, added it to the OP

“it works on my machine”!

Sorry, edited the title to not be abbreviated!

Yes, according to their historical data Seagate drives appear to be on the higher side of failure rates. I’ve also experienced it myself, my Seagate drives have almost always failed before my WD drives.

This is misinformation, I have always known what drives to expect when shucking. Not only that, but you can tell what drive is inside just by plugging it in before shucking to check. I’ve shucked over 16 drives so far and all were exactly as expected.

The drives for WD are white label, but they’re WD Reds. They’re cheaper because they’re consumer facing, no more, no less. Have you been bitten by shucking in the past? I’m confused why else you’d be saying it’s a risk. The only risk associated is warranty related.

That info can be found in the smart data for the drives, but I didn’t mean 10,000 hours, more like > 50,000

The NAS itself will likely outlive the drives inside, just the nature of things. Hard drives follow a sort of curve when it comes to failure, most fail either immediately or in a few 10000 hours of run time. Other factors include the drives being too hot, the amount of hard power events, and vibration.

Lots of info on drive failure can be found on Backblaze’s Drive stat page. I know you have shucked drives, these are likely white label WD Red drives which are close to the 14TB WD drive backblaze uses.

Spoiler: it won’t be $25,000.