The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.
- 0 Posts
- 5 Comments
- DreamlandLividity@lemmy.worldtoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•People who are staying on Plex, have you tried Jellyfin? What about it do you not prefer? (real question)English1·2 months ago
- DreamlandLividity@lemmy.worldtoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•People who are staying on Plex, have you tried Jellyfin? What about it do you not prefer? (real question)English34·2 months ago
You’re right, but I don’t care if they switch honestly. I used that wording because of the “anything else is stupid” statement, which just irked me when paired with the obvious fallacy.
- DreamlandLividity@lemmy.worldtoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•People who are staying on Plex, have you tried Jellyfin? What about it do you not prefer? (real question)English67·2 months ago
I paid for it, I’ll use it. When it is unusable I’ll bail. Anything else is stupid.
What you are saying is called sunk cost fallacy. A notoriously common stupid way of thinking.
The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.
deleted by creator
Tailscale now supports buying Mullvad subscription through them and using it with their app. So it solves this issue, although the control you have over your Mullvad tunnel is less and it misses some advanced Mullvad features. Still probably good enough for most people.
I ended up going a different route by buying a VPS and hosting Caddy as reverse proxy. Then I only have my VPS and NAS on tailscale and other devices use the reverse proxy. This allows me to also share links to cloud files or other stuff I host with friends that are not on tailscale.
Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.
Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:
Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.
One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.