That’s some awful impressive goalpost shifting. Gold medal mental gymnastics winner.

And here you are, still unable to explain why prefix and postfix notation don’t have an operator precedence. I’m still waiting.

I already told you 3 times they obey the same rules

They literally don’t, and I defy you to show me a single source that tells you that prefix or postfix notation use PEDMAS. I’ll even take Quora answers.
Heck, I’ll even take a reputable source talking about prefix/postfix that doesnt bring up how order of operations isn’t required for those notations.

Nope. Doesn’t say that anywhere. Go ahead and screenshot the part which you think says that. I’ll wait

Right here:

Infix notation needs extra information to make the order of evaluation of the operators clear:

rules built into the language about operator precedence and associativity

Which you attempt to retort with

BTW this is completely wrong…

But then you go on to say something to the effect of “anyone who knows the rules can the extra information”. Which is both unsubstantiated given the long history of not having PEDMAS, but also kind of a nothingburger.

Doesn’t say that either. 🙄 Again, provide a screenshot of where you think it says that

It’s literally the whole thing. Did you notice how they never discuss the need for operator precedence, or use operator precedence?

Build for me a prefix or postfix equation that you think is changed by adding parentheses (eg overriding the natural order of operations), and then go ahead and find a prefix or postfix calculator and show me the results of removing those parentheses.
If you read the rules for those notations, you’ll see pretty clearly that operator precedence is purely positional, and has nothing to do with which operator it is.

Note that I always cite Maths textbooks

No, you’ve show a screenshot from a random PDF. What math textbook and what edition is it?

The fact you think that factorization has to do with order of operations is shocking.
Yes the multiplication is done first, but not because PEDMAS. The law is about converting between a sum of a common product and a product of sums. No matter how you write them, it will always be about those things, so the multiplication always happens first. It doesn’t depend on PEDMAS because without PEDMAS you’d simply write the equation differently and factorization would still work.
It’s crazy that you’re not able to distinguish between mathematical concepts and the notation we use to describe them.

But putting that aside, that’s not a proof of PEDMAS.
If PEDMAS is an actual law, then there will be a formal proof or theorem about it. There are proofs for 1+1, if PEDMAS is a law then there will be an actual proof specifically about it. Not just some law and then you claim it follows that PEDMAS is true, an actual proof or theorem, or an textbook snippet explain how it is an unprovable statement.

I already scare the baddies away 🥲

What is up with Pooh’s face?
Is this AI?

Left to right is a convention, yes, doing Multiplication and Division before Addition and Subtraction is a rule 🙄

A claim entirely unsupported by the textbook example you provided. Nowhere does it say that one is a convention but not the other, it only says that removing brackets changes the meaning in some situations, which is fully within the scope of a convention.

For the 3rd time it does have order of operations 🙄You just do them in some random order do you?

There you go again, just admitting you don’t know what postfix and prefix notations are.
If you’re ordering your operations based what the operator is, like PEDMAS, then what you’re doing isn’t prefix or postfix.

I’ll tell you what, here is a great free article from Colorado State university talking about prefix, postfix, and infix notations.
Note how it says the rules about operator precedence are for the notation which itself is a convention, as all notations are, and how prefix and postfix don’t need those rules

says person who doesn’t know the difference between conventions and rules, and thinks postfix notation doesn’t have rules 🙄

How embarrassing for you.
Here are some more materials:

• A post by Berkley university about popular ambiguous equations.
• A published paper from Berkley that has been cited, with much stronger language on the matter.
• Here is an article from the university of Melbourne
• Article from the university of utah
• A howstuffworks article on order of operations that explains it, doesn’t have the pedigree of a university, but still clearly explained
• Plus dozens of Quora answers, articles from online academies and learning centers, that I figured you’d just dismiss.

But to top it all off, if this was truely a law of mathematics, then show me a proof, theorem, or even a mathematical conjecture, about order of operations.

In your screenshot of a textbook, they refer to it as a convention twice.

And you still haven’t explained prefix or postfix notation not having order of operations.

Get rekd idiot

I don’t really think that is true, those big wood TVs mostly aren’t especially stylish, and neither are recorded players.
Although style is obviously subjective so I suppose our miles vary

On CloudFlare, user224.com renews annually at less than $11

That’s where I got my domain (I was using them at the time, but it doesn’t matter), for that price, and that includes whois privacy.

I can’t answer many of the questions here, but I can help a little with two:

If you’re worried about noise, don’t get ironwolf drives. I just did and they’re noisy af. I brought some sound absorbing foam to put around the place where I keep my NAS, because they’re so much louder than I expected.

Don’t open up a port in your network.
Use something like tailscale to connect your devices to your home network, or rent an VPS to run a secure tunnel using pangolin (you’ll need to look into bandwidth limits).

Ah, RP, so
Bottol of wotta

Are you the
Buh’oh ah wa’ah
Or
Bah’ol ah wa’er
Or
Bo’el a wo’ah
Type of English?

“have”?
I think you mean 'ave, mate, innit?

Sorry I misread when you said “library” for some reason I thought you meant “external library”

The problem that I’m trying to solve and I think OP is also trying to solve, is that they want the files to be on their NAS because it is high capacity, redundant, and backed up, but many users have access to the NAS, so they cannot rely on immich alone to provide access permissions, they need access permissions on the files themselves.

I solved this by having a separate share for every user, and then mounting that user’s share on their library (storage label).
It sounds like OP wants a single share, so having correct file ownership is important to restrict file access to the correct users who are viewing the filesystem outside of immich.

Not sure what you mean by your last paragraph, how do you assign a share to individual files (assume you mean directories) outside of immich’s need for storage?

Library access won’t allow upload, this will.

My knowledge here isn’t super deep, but it seems like you can do mapping per-share-per-ip, which means you can say “all file access coming from the immich host to this share will act as this user” which I think is fine if that share belongs to that user, and you don’t have anything else coming from that host to that share which you want to act as a different user. Which are very big caveats.

Preface

I got excited and didn’t properly read your post before I wrote out a huge reply. I thought your problem was the per-user mapping to different locations on your NAS or to different shares, but its specifically file ownership.
whoops.

Leaving this here anyways, in case someone finds it helpful.
I kinda address file ownership at the end, but I don’t think its really what you were looking for because it depends on every user having their own share.

Prerequisites

1. you need to be using Storage Templates.
2. you’re willing to change the storage labels for all existing users
   • if not, then change the storage labels for all users to something temporary and run the migration job before you begin. You’ll change it back later.
3. you’re willing to switch to NFS instead of samba, where each user gets their own share.
   • might not actually be necessary, but its what I use, so YMMV

Configuration

Volumes

In docker, you’ll need to set up an external NFS volume for every user. I use portainer to manage my docker stacks, and its pretty easy to set up NFS volumes. I’m not sure how to do it with raw docker, but I dont think its complicated.

Compose

in your docker compose files, include something like this

services:
  immich-server:
    # ...
    volumes:
      - ${UPLOAD_LOCATION}:/data
      - /etc/localtime:/etc/localtime:ro
     - type: volume
        source: user1-share
        target: /data/library/user1-intended-storage-label
        volume:
          subpath: path/to/photos/in/user1/share
    - type: volume
        source: user2-share
        target: /data/library/user2-intended-storage-label
        volume:
          subpath: path/to/photos/in/user2/share
    # and so on for every user
  # ...

volumes:
  model-cache:
  user1-share:
    external: true
  user2-share:
    external: true
  # and so on for every user

There are 3 things about this setup:

1. it does not scale automatically. this is fine as long as you don’t intend to be adding/removing users often.
2. it is only saving the photos and videos. all thumbnails and transcoded videos, etc, get saved to ${UPLOAD_LOCATION}. For me this is fine, I dont want to pollute my NAS with a bunch of transient data, but if you want that info then for every user, in addition to the target: /data/library/user1 target you’ll also need a target: /data/thumbs/user1, target: /data/encoded-video/user1, etc.
3. If there is already data at the target, when you mount this volume it will mask that data. This is why it is important that no users exist with that storage label prior to this change, else that data will get hidden.

You may also want to add similar volumes for external libraries (I gave every user an external “archive” library for their old photos) like this:

    - type: volume
        source: user1-share
        target: /unique/path/to/this/users/archive
        volume:
          subpath: path/to/photo/archive/on/share

and then you’ll need to go and add that target as an external library in the admin setup.
and once immich allows sharing external libraries (or turning external libraries into sharable albums) I’ll also include a volume for a shared archive.

Migrate

redeploy, change your user storage labels to match the targets, and run the migration job (or create the users with matching storage labels).

File ownership

I honestly don’t think its important, as long as your user has full access to the files, its fine. But if you insist then you have a separate share for every user and set up the NFS server for that share to squash all to that share’s user. Its a little less secure, but you’ll only be allowing requests from that single IP, and there will only be a request from a single user from that server anyways.
Synology unfortunately doesn’t support this, they only allow squashing to admin or guest (or disable squashing).

Any size is fine if the other side doesn’t know they’re coming to a gun fight

What you’re looking for is probably something like certificate authentication, or mTLS. It exists, but it’s kind of a pain to set up on client devices so it’s not very common.

What’s more common and easier to set up and is nearly the same thing, is passkey authentication. Same in-flight security characteristics, but you typically need to pass a simple challenge for your device to unlock it.

There are a bunch of self-hosted auth options for both

I wanna try matrix, but it’s crazy to me that no clients, even the official clients, support all the features. It really makes me hesitate lol

Yeah, that was the incident that really made me look back on his previous action with fresh eyes and reconsider my opinion of him.

Like you said, it went downhill fast after that

Jastate?
Odd name

I don’t get it, and I feel like I’m probably not supposed to.
Kind of a shame. I guess I’ll just get led astray