IMO, you want ram more than you want processing power. 16 gig ought to be enough. Most of the time your containers will sit dormant and just consume memory. However since you want to run Jellyfin, get a recent CPU which can do hardware decoding of popular codecs. There’s charts online that show what generation can handle what codecs. Ideally you don’t want that done by software. You should still be able to find something cheap.

In terms of placement. It depends a lot on noise IMO. If you’re running something small without magnetic storage, you’re probably fine to stick it anywhere. If you have several data-centre grade hard drives, you will probably want to keep it somewhere where you wont hear it all day.

In terms of upgrading, I’m not sure if its as much of a concern as you might think. I run probably about 30 docker containers off a NUC clone and a seperate NAS, and that has worked pretty well for the last few years. I can always add more drives to the NAS, but otherwise its fine. Also, many of my services scale to zero with sablier+traefik, and I schedule filesharing for low bandwidth times. This makes things pretty manageable.

Influencers are pests and an insidious blight on humanity, but this feels like a new low for them.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-01/federal-court-sydney-wissam-haddad-lectures-social-media/105480506 is mentioned here, but it the framing is a bit different and the ruling a little more detailed. (Probably a better source out there but I’m also on my phone)

I assume a working with children check wouldn’t have a high standard of evidence and a candidate probably doesn’t need a conviction to fail the test. E.g., it would be enough for a previous employer to say “Oh yeah we couldn’t prove it but we had some serious complaints that he was fiddling kids”. If that is the case, I really don’t feel comfortable with this direction. If its more of a case where theres some established quantifiable criteria that would never reasonably pass appeal, then sure… but I don’t get what this solves except to save resources.

It strikes me as opportunistic politics to appeal to the emotion of voters–which is just tacky when we are talking about something as serious as peoples careers and child safety.