kibblebits

I do use handbrake. I should have been more specific. I just mean’t to say that it’s not like a bunch of low quality Pirate Bay downloads. That actual discs were used. So many discs. So many that I actually have a pile of dead readers because I used them to death.

Uhmmm so, yeah. It’s… a significant investment. Let’s say, I look for HDD sales constantly and I’m eating less these days to feed my habit.

For the curious, I run on Synology hardware. Most of the drives are 20-24TB each.

I have their 12 bay sever with two 12 expansions (36 total) and then another 8 bay server with two 5 expansions.

I started with the 8, and when I quickly hit 18 total drives with redundancy… I realized this was going to be a lot more than I had initially planned for.

These are also direct disc rips. No downloads. That’s actual discs in hand, ripping, saving, typing. It’s mostly from my amazing city library, the local video store, borrowing, and then the rest are purchases.

And I’ll answer the next question, dual income no kids… and my partner shares my interest (or at least benefits!). They always know what to get me for a present.

Thanks for the tip.

Lucky you. I’ve got almost 750Tb the transition might be rough.

Was the conversion easy? Could you keep your watchlist and whatnot?

I have… a lot of data.

Unless, like me, you got it for $49.

Still, jellyfin.

If they don’t, and they say they aren’t, it is a mistrial.

If they don’t, and they keep their mouth shut, then no one knows.

Connected.

They have to. I mean legally they cannot consider that evidence. If they keep bringing it up in jury deliberations, and that gets reported, it would be a mistrial.

However, you’re right in that it cannot be erased from a person’s mind… the phrase I’ve heard used is “ringing the bell” which is when a lawyer might mention a persons prior convictions, but that gets objected to and stricken. But the bell rung and the jury knows.

They don’t. But later in deliberations they cannot see it in a transcript. They are supposed to base everything on the evidence they have.

So, if something is said that absolutely incriminates a person, but it’s thrown out on a technicality and little evidence remains… technically they should be not guilty.

Conversely, if someone is being railroaded for a crime and the only evidence placing them half way across the world at the time is somehow thrown out…. They’d have to find them guilty.

Could you? I could not.