Even if you are confident in your Linux skills this isn’t a bad idea. I’ve seen too many OS installers put things on drivers other than the one you choose to risk it at this point.

I think you are conflating a few different concepts here.

Can you comment on the specific makeup of a “rendered” audio file in plaintext, how is the computer representing every little noise bit of sound at any given point, the polyphony etc?
What are the conventions of such representation? How can a spectrogram tell pitches are where they are, how is the computer representing that?

This is a completely separate concern from how data can be represented as text, and will vary by audio format. The “simplest”, PCM encoded audio like in a .wav file, doesn’t really concern itself at all with polyphony and is just a quantised representation of the audio wave amplitude at any given instant in time. It samples that tens of thousands of times per second. Whether it’s a single pure tone or a full symphony the density of what’s stored is the same. Just an air-pressure-over-time graph, essentially.

Is it the same to view plaintext as analysing it with a hex-viewer?

“Plaintext” doesn’t really have a fixed definition in this context. It can be the same as looking at it in a hex viewer, if your “plaintext” representation is hexadecimal encoding. Binary data, like in audio files, isn’t plaintext, and opening it directly in a text editor is not expected to give you a useful result, or even a consistent result. Different editors might show you different “text” depending on what encoding they fall back on, or how they represent unprintable characters.

There are several methods of representing binary data as text, such as hexadecimal, base64, or uuencode, but none of these representations if saved as-is are the original file, strictly speaking.

Yes. Decoding a base64 encoded string will give you back the exact original data.

Importantly though, this isn’t what you’re seeing when you open files in a text editor as you describe in your original post, and if you copied the text of those files and saved a new copy it’s very likely that it would not reproduce correctly.

Bell and Rogers actually don’t share their towers in Canada.

Exactly this. I have a couple of small projects that are MIT licensed specifically because I don’t care how people use them or what they use them for. If someone finds it useful then they’re welcome to do whatever they want with it.

This idea that I’m being somehow hoodwinked or taken advantage of because the thing that I explicitly said could be used freely is being used in a way that doesn’t align with the values of some other completely uninvolved third party is beyond absurd.

There are a few options there.

As someone else mentioned if you’re using IPv6 then it doesn’t matter, you’re already routing internally even if you’re using the public DNS name, no extra work required.

All the rest are for IPv4.

If you’re not behind CGNAT some routers/gateways are also smart enough with their routing to recognise when they need to route back to their own external IP and will loop back locally instead of making any hops out to the internet. Again, if this is the case for you then no additional work is required other than perhaps running a traceroute to confirm.

Another option is to add a local DNS entry for the name you’re using to resolve to a local IP address instead of your public address. The complexity (or even possibility) of this is going to vary considerably with your setup. If you’re running your own local DNS e.g. pihole or similar then it’s trivial. This is how mine is set up.

If all your clients are going to be on PCs (or devices you have more than the typical manufacturer allowed modicum of control over) then you can do something kind of like the previous, just with all your local hosts files.

If none of the above are options, then you’ll unfortunately have to fall back on using a local name/address, which means a slightly different client setup for devices you use exclusively in your home versus ones you might use elsewhere.

Traffic for a local Jellyfin server should definitely not be going over the internet. Also any reasonably modern client should be able to direct play most media without transcoding.

As for my own Jellyfin setup, one TV has an Nvidia shield plugged in and is using the standard Android TV client. The other is a Samsung smart TV onto which I have side-loaded the Jellyfin Tizen app.

Speedtest.net, Steam, well populated torrents, and the Star Citizen patcher are the only things I’ve experienced my full downstream of 1.5Gbps with.

To be fair his prior rant was about how bad he was at using and understanding Linux.

I’m all for more people switching to linux, but a lot of your windows issues sound less like windows issues and more like your specific installation is messed up somehow issues.

One thing I will mention though is that Windows does have native per-application volume control, you don’t need to install EarTrumpet. You can right-click the system tray volume icon and open the mixer, or just search for “volume mixer” in the start menu.

A temporary one that you’re expected to remove as soon as you’ve created the admin user(s) you need, but yes. It should only be there during initial setup and ideally removed before the server is ever exposed to the internet.

Always 5% higher than it currently is.

No. The opposite, in a way. Curse of Knowledge.

Headless server accessed via SSH. Hosting Jellyfin, FoundryVTT, a Discord bot that I just mess around with, and also use it to run an IRC client inside screen.

Higher pitch is a short sighted adjustment. Wider range, so you can keep your lower registers.

Painless? Even accepting that emotional pain doesn’t count (which I don’t agree with) 50% of every person involved in operating a piece of dangerous machinery just suddenly disappearing absolutely caused widespread injury and death among those left behind.

The machine I have running mint is a fifteen year old Core 2 Duo T6600 laptop. Works great!

But that’s just more business!

Literally the only reason I ever fire up a different browser. Come on guys.

Depends on what your goal is. Strictly speaking cc by sa is more permissive than putting no copyright notice at all, since copyright is automatic, and the cc licenses grant various permissions not contained in standard copyright. It’s just a fancy legalistic way of saying “please credit me if you use this, continue to share in a similar fashion, but not for any commercial purpose”.

So if you want people to share your work, cc by sa makes sense.