Never use a spreadsheet to do a database job.

Unless you were playing Smash Brothers, then you could have 8.

Nope, you have to make an appearance in court and provide documentation of your death.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses”

A long wire is an antenna that will gather electromagnetic noise from the air and turn it into random signal on the line. Shorter wires will be less responsive and therefore less noisy, and you can also mitigate the problem by grounding everything properly. It’s also possible that with the wires in that parallel ribbon, they may induce crosstalk on each other. If you want to be really careful, you could replace that big ribbon cable with an STP cable and ground the shielding jacket.

Also, a noisy/low quality power input to the Pi will produce noise in its circuits and ultimately the output. If you can, supply the power from something better than a wall wart.

Lapsley noted that Moscow has recently been “talking an awful lot about their nuclear doctrine and how that may or not be evolving.” He said that it appears to be “a pretty clear attempt to influence us” when it comes to support for Ukraine.

[…] Putin said that a conventional attack on Russia by any country with the support of a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack […] But NATO has not seen any real change in Moscow’s nuclear posture.

Lots of posturing, very transparent.

Rutte said it’s important to just leave Putin to “talk about his nuclear arsenal. He wants us also to discuss his nuclear arsenal, and I think we shouldn’t.”

At the same time, Rutte said, giving in to any threat “would set a precedent that using military force allows a country to get what it wants, and we cannot do that.”

This guy gets it.

yes… relatively speaking

Hot potato.

Your description makes belief sound like willful ignorance.

Maybe, maybe not. In the absence of evidence, belief may be harmless, though somewhat pointless in the sense of Hitchen’s razor:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

and Newton’s flaming laser sword:

That which cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.

It certainly becomes willful ignorance if the believer avoids and/or actively rejects contradictory evidence.

It sounds like the real challenge is knowing when you have enough information to convert your educated guess into full-blown knowledge

The educated guess (hypothesis) becomes knowledge when it can be demonstrated by direct experiment rather than inferred/constructed from related knowledge. Also it’s important that the educated guess be testable/disprovable somehow, at least in theory (Popper’s falsifiability principle):

Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.

So, belief is benign when it exists in an untested/untestable area and the believer is not bound to the belief emotionally. Belief is malignant when it exists in a tested area or when the believer clings to the belief emotionally. Belief is either harmless or extremely damaging, but in either case of no practical value.

Solipsism is a dead-end of navel gazing.

Belief is seeing that the light is green even when it isn’t.

Knowledge is accepting that the light is red when it is.

Believing that the light is green will not help you when you get flattened by a truck. Knowing that the light is red will keep you from dying pointlessly.

Knowledge is the first step on the path to wisdom. Belief is delusion.

If you cannot demonstrate, or point to a demonstration, then all you can do is guess. You can make an educated guess based on other demonstrations, but if you cling to your guesswork as if it were demonstrated to be true, and you internalize your guesswork as part of your identity, and you refuse to let go of it when confronted with contradictory demonstrations, then you are a fool.

“A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”

Don’t like Mastodon, huh?

Also connections to nerve cells are not constant. Some connections are strong and the nerve cell is more likely to activate when triggered through one of them while other are weak and need stronger signal to trigger (someone who knows biology can rephrase this part better). so with 50 million connections of varying strength simulation becomes much more difficult.

I don’t see why adding weights to the connections would be particularly difficult. Even if the weights need to vary over time or by other conditions, that could be included in the simulation. It might be a bit more complex, but current neural network systems already do variable connection strength between nodes.

The other thing is that 99% of the time the brain respond to outside stimuli. You see something, signal is sent to brain and brain make decision based on the input.

In this case you have absolutely zero input.

This should be very easy - if we’re simulating the presence of sensory neurons then we can certainly simulate some input stimuli on them.

Simulate it how? you need an initial state.

I don’t see why this would be true, and anyway how do you know that the connection map doesn’t already represent an initial state?

So this is basically a physical map of the cells and their interconnections. We also know quite a lot about how the individual cells function.

So… if we simulated the behavior of all those cells and connected them as described by this map, and basically just turned it on… would it behave like a fly? Would it respond to stimuli as if it were a fly?

The computer needed for that would probably be the size of a building and eat electricity like candy, but it’d be interesting - the functional brain of a living creature reproduced in software.

Scoring interactions is toxic.

Hmm, maybe… but if this is what you think, then why use Lemmy at all? This is basically a core function of the platform. If you just want conversation, there are other platforms that are built for that.

Forced positivity is toxic positivity.

Removing an interaction choice from users can only result in lower quality user interaction.

Removing the capacity for downvotes harms the community.

You could always try Red Star OS

Ah, I didn’t actually look at the Aoostar device you mentioned in your post… yeah you probably don’t want to run TrueNAS on that, something lighter would be more appropriate.

I do want to point out that in this price range you can get a used PowerEdge tower that will be more capable, reliable, repairable and upgradeable long-term. You can add more drives, more RAM, and even a second processor as your needs grow, plus it has a proper backplane with a physical RAID controller and redundant PSUs. If any of the electronics in that R1N100 fail you have to replace the whole device.

Of course it’s a lot bulkier, so it might not fit your use.

My priorities are ease of installation and administration, as well as reliability.

How much of a priority is reliability? How many drives are you running, and how many of them are mirrored or hot spares? or are you running one of the striped RAID levels?

Hard drives are consumables and should be expected to fail. Data redundancy is a fundamental requirement for reliability. Probably everything else in the server is disposable/replaceable, but the data isn’t.

TrueNAS makes management of mirrored drive pools easy, and frankly 1:1 mirroring is the most sane way to handle redundancy (vs. parity striping), and you should always have at least one hot spare in the pool as well. For instance, I have five 8TB drives in a TrueNAS server - two mirrored pairs, and the fifth is a hot spare. I have 40TB of drive space but only 16TB of storage, but when an active drive fails then TrueNAS will automatically bring the hot spare online and copy the data from the mirror of the failed drive onto it and alert me that a replacement drive is needed. This is easy to set up, and TrueNAS also automates SMART testing and will attempt to load balance read & write cycles based on drive age and performance.