WeirdGoesPro

Your method required me to take out a pot. My method requires me to throw a bag in a microwave like an animal. We are not the same. /s

I agree, but it needs a solid philosophy of use behind it so if doesn’t capture all of your attention the same way a phone does.

Honestly, they had me for the 1st gen, and then progressively convinced me that I don’t need one as they made it more of a phone.

That isn’t what they’re doing—it says in the article that the measurements are of case height, not screen size within the case. The body of the watch is bigger.

The phone made sense up to a point—it has become more like a miniature book, and the changing form has reflected that.

The entire point of the watch is to free yourself from the screen of the phone for basic tasks. If the function of the watch hinges on the screen, then the phone is the better tool for that.

There was a time when Apple understood how the different parts of their ecosystem existed in their own lanes. Tim Cook has not seemed to grasp that one of their greatest strengths was that their devices weren’t designed to do absolutely everything, but rather a few targeted things very well.

Jesus, if we’re chasing bigger screens on watches, we’re thinking about them all wrong.

Then sell me a 1TB plan—don’t call it unlimited.

I’m not screwing anybody over. I am using an available plan from a large company, and they have not had any issue with my usage that they have deemed necessary to bring to my attention. I cover multiple machines with their service, and my other machines have far less data on them—likely below their average. I am using it as a personal backup, as intended. Even if I trend above their average, they had to expect that some users would fall into that category if the option was available.

You are the only party that seems to have a major issue with how I’m using the service. I don’t understand why you seem to have such a strong opinion on this.

If a business doesn’t want a plan to be used as unlimited storage, then they should simply set a limit in the terms.

You are massively oversimplifying the situation. They are discriminating against which operating system I use, and not addressing that data is data. If I ran a windows VM on the same machine and put my data in there, it would be exactly the same as running the Backblaze container.

And it isn’t a $20 per year difference—if I backed up the same amount of data on the B2 plan, it would be around $3000 per year. Seems like a pretty steep increase to back up the same amount of data through Debian as opposed to Windows. They’ve never complained, never even tried to sell me the B2 plan, and I haven’t even seen anything telling me I’m storing an overly large amount of data for my plan.

Lastly, I read their TOS, and I don’t consider myself to be breaking them. I’m only backing up personal files at home and the program is technically running through a windows environment. That is what their unlimited plan was designed for. If they wanted it to be different, they could call it a 10TB plan.

I’m sure some will disagree with me. To each their own.

There definitely isn’t a docker container that will let you run Backblaze in WINE so that you can get the cheap unlimited plan working on Linux. You shouldn’t go looking for such a thing to save money. /s

Hard to watch? Other than the obvious brutality of the crucifixion, I remember that movie as being a middle of the road flick. The Aramaic dialogue was pretty cool though.

I’m a home server hobbyist. I like to think of them as computer solutions.

IMAX.