I built a $5k Raspberry Pi server (yes, it's ridiculous)
jeffgeerling.com
jeffgeerling.com
The thing is, from all my own A/B testing, a face vs. no face will automatically get 20-30% more views (all else equal). And an exaggerated face, a bit more than that.
You can easily A/B test yourself into mediocrity by constantly optimizing for a larger, dumber audience. They stop liking your old content (despite your dumb faces, etc) so you make new content they like more, keep that cycle up for a while.
And you end up making emotionally charged rage-porn political videos and have become the next Facebook/cable news/etc.
This is also why the second or third album for a band is usually the best; they get popular and start letting their audience design their music and become repetitive and mildly awful.
That's not how it works.
The most important factor to get views on YouTube is the recommendation algorithm. It makes a huge difference. YouTube will not even push your videos to people who are subscribed to you if the recommendation algorithm doesn't favor them.
As the click-through rate is an important part of how the algorithm decides what to recommend, you need a catchy thumbnail and a somewhat clickbaity title or you will be reduced to oblivion by people who use one regardless of the actual quality of your content. The story is the same with the length of video.
Veritasium made a couple of very good videos on the issue if you are interested.
Then, earlier this year, one of my videos suddenly skyrocketed[1]. It was an old video, 10 years or so, and it only consisted of one 10 second scene of a movie that I found funny at that time, and that I shared with a couple friends. It had about 50 views until march.
Then, it suddenly exploded, and now that video has just short of 1 million views, with a peak of ~60k or so per day.
I have absolutely no idea what crazy algorithm suddenly started recommending a 10-year-old video that is nothing more than a 10s snippet from a hollywood movie to millions and millions of people around the world.
The most interesting part (for me) was the psychological effect this had on me. First, my phone started sending notifications like crazy (I turned them off pretty quickly). That changed into a daily morning-routine of "let's see how many people watched the video this night"... Then, when the new followers came (I gained a couple hundred during that time) I had a feeling of guilt because I think they somehow "expect" similar clips from me from now on, and I would be letting them down (of course, totally irrational, I could care less of what some random people expect from me). Then I started researching how much revenue I could have gained from that if that were a "real" video with original content and ads thrown in.....
It was a wild ride :-D
If you sound like a dying cat, your click through rate will be high, but your average watch length will be low.
I agree there's a problem with how the algorithm drives creators to this stuff, but it's also not that unsophisticated that clickbait = success
Jeff, could you do a test and report the results? ;) Maybe dealing with Raspberry Pis isn't as lucrative as you thought.
Other than that (I also get triggered by the thumbnail thing), your channel is one of the very best on YouTube.
Yep, 50% of them are below 100 IQ, 50% are above 100 IQ.
Official definition of IQ: measure average IQ of a population, then label the point where 50% of population is below average as 100 IQ points.
By definition, half are below the median. The normal distribution's median is equal to the mean, so half are below mean.
Like are there people out there that see a whacky face in the thumbnail and think "Oh that's a video I want to watch!" and the algorithm just got trained on that?
Or did whacky faces just resemble something (from the algorithm's perspective) that was briefly popular and then a positive feedback loop of algorithm recommends it -> gets popular -> algorithm updated to recommend it more often.
And on top of that, an expression outside of "stock photo smile" will stand out more, and if you combine that, plus a catchy title that piques your interest, and have a video that can back it up, it will do a lot better than just having a video that has good content.
Instead you are presented with a small number of options and given unlimited time to choose, and the consequence of choosing a bad video is several minutes of wasted time. I presume most people are asking themselves "do I want to watch this" and deciding "yes, this video looks interesting/entertaining/etc." Maybe if the effect were small, like 1-2% I could believe its just a slight nudge due to psychological hacking, but the reported differences in the tens of percent and the extreme importance that seems to be placed by the algorithm indicates this is a major factor in peoples' decision making process.
I doubt this is how most people's eyes actually scan a visual field. I expect there's a lot more randomness going on subconsciously, and that face-like features cause a higher subconscious dwell time.
had to click on something quickly...but that's not how Youtube works.
I think for most people it is. Scroll scroll scroll tap, all within a few seconds.
When you're only presented with a tiny bit of information, it doesn't take long to evaluate a decision. A few seconds is a long time. No one, at least to my knowledge, is opening youtube and clicking on the first thing they see in milliseconds. Hell, just variation in page loading time probably has a bigger effect on what we see first. Critically though, there's no deadline - even if you see something you want to watch quickly, you don't have to click on something if you don't see something you want to watch. Without time pressure, there's no need to make an impulsive click.
I've noticed this same thing with advertisements and dancing. Why are people always dancing and singing in advertisements? Seems like people just are wired to pay attention to certain human behaviors.
It's happened multiple times before that a YouTube video keeps following me and I ignore it, but once I realize who it's by I see it.
Have you A/B tested mouth open and mouth closed?
I also think the graphics, title, face; these are signaling some level of effort and focus. It might not be the individual face, graphics, or title, it could be just their presence.
But when I'm logged in, it shows me the exact videos I've been avoiding watching these past few weeks and when I do watch a video, instead of showing me similar vids or vids from the same creator - it just shows me videos I've watched or the video updates I've been avoiding. And the odd Taylor Swift MV, an artist whose works (is it even music) I've never even...not even in a mix.
The team at YT has jokes it seems. Comedians.
(Also, I don't mean for this to be an anti-Linus post. How he built LMG is a great story and he deserves the success he's achieved.)
You and I might use subscriptions on YouTube (just like I prefer RSS), but 99% of viewers for some reason just go to the home page and click on things YouTube recommends (regardless of whether they subscribe to a channel).
If you don't get recommended, you don't get views, and it's even less likely that regular viewers (outside the few who actually check their subscriptions page) will engage with your videos.
For example, Luke Smith hosts many of his videos over on Odysee nowadays: https://odysee.com/$/invite/@Luke:7
Also, Bryan Lunduke also moved over to Locals and has generally expressed that it's a more pleasant community: https://lunduke.locals.com/
Of course, i don't doubt that it's akin to financial suicide for anyone who relies on YouTube as their main source of income, but if nothing else, it's nice to see people standing up for their principles, instead of selling out and trying to build their platform on another site that can end their presence at will.
I guess only time will show whether there ever will be any financially feasible alternatives to YouTube, though.
Question remains: so what? Unless you are monetizing your videos and intend to make significant money from “engagement”, why would someone single-minded let optimize for views or algorithm-friendliness?
For this guy, I guess he’s trying to make a living from YouTube, so I guess… by all means growth hack your video thumbnail. But for the rest of the video uploaders, absent a desire to monetize, a video with 100 views is no worse for the uploader than a video with 100,000 views.
My guess is that everyone that uploads videos with catchy titles and thumbnails wants to monetize their videos eventually. Even if money isn't a motivation, getting more views probably has a value in itself for most content creators.
(and if we're honest if you really do want to see the content then depriving yourself because of the contents of the thumbnail feels very self-defeating)
Like, subscribe and turn on notifications.
We want to hear what you think, comment below.
Have you tested a difference between a regular expression (intrigued, skeptic, smiling...) and a goofy face? For science?
Though it gets an insane amount of backlash on HN (case in point: this thread).
This kind of multi-modal behaviour can be very hard to capture with A/B test. You get a large influx of people that more than offsets the loss in the other audience pool. It's also anyone's guess on which group is better. From a pure business perspective, it's probably okay to lose me, as I use adblock and/or youtube-dl to watch the videos, which means I don't really drive revenue. That said, I've noticed some second order effects: as I'm more technical, I would recommend these type of content to others who will listen to my advice. I've noticed similar effects with others. If the more technical people are in the second group and are driven away, I wonder if this kind of stuff makes a difference with the long term health of a channel/content generator, which could be very difficult to quantify.
In any case thanks for your videos and insights.
I think it might be more honest of you to phrase it not as: I have to do this because otherwise I don't get 20% more views. That feels a little bit disingenuous to me. You don't have to do anything. You could probably get a lot more views by colluding with another YouTuber to create drama or apparent "fights", like so many seem to. Aka, go full Kardashian. But you don't. You choose very explicitly what you do. Which does include goofy face thumbnails, but does not include staging YouTube drama.
A more honest phrasing to me might be something like: "Goofy faces get more views, and without them, my YouTube channel has much less income. I'm trying to support myself with YouTube, and so I am doing goofy faces even though I hate it and think it's completely asinine." You get really close to something like this phrasing, & the underlying message can be gathered by your other comments, but you don't outright own it. If you are going to do something asinine for exposure, you might as well own it imo.
So, with that out of the way: This project is really cool and thanks for doing a write-up & video on it :)
guessing not the regex you were implying though
I have no trouble understanding why this happens on "entertainment" videos, but this issue on technical videos seems a bit strange to me.
This is still entertainment. Technical info dressed up as entertainment, but still entertainment. Clicks reign supreme.
All videos are entertainment videos; it is a medium optimized for and driven by emotional response.
https://blog.codinghorror.com/how-not-to-advertise-on-the-in...
Where does it end?
Having a face in the thumbnail helps me to identify channels that already of interest me. That is the positive.
While there is an element of entertainment to the channel, I usually view your channel for information (e.g. interesting project ideas). I expect the thumbnail to show me what the video is about. If an exaggerated facial expression draws my attention away from that, or leads me to believe there is more entertainment than substance to the video (e.g. it is for shock value), then I will simply skip over it.
Throwing in a face for a 20-30% increase in views is almost certainly worth it. The question is: are the exaggerated attention grabbing thumbnails worth a bit more than that? Each time I skip a video, the channel's relevance goes down in my mind. Each time the relevance goes down, I am less likely to assess future thumbnails positively.[1] My thoughts are that the "bit more" may be of short term value for gaining viewers, but counterproductive in retaining long term viewers.
[1] Yes, it is an unfair assessment since it is based upon unwatched videos. On the other hand, viewers are confronted with a deluge of videos each time they visit YouTube.
Tits are better than just a face.
Also kudos to building your brand, I only saw the headline and already figured it might be you.. (or Linus, but it didn't say anything about /dropping/ 5k)
I think it would have a lot to do with whether the presenter is part of the video (I do 'talking head' a lot) versus off-camera (like, for example, ETA Prime, LPL, or AvE).
I watch a ton of YouTube and exaggerated facial expressions in thumbnails are rare in the channels I watch. The channels don't seem to be suffering for it, many have subscriber counts in the millions. I even have a concrete head-to-head example. Every Saturday morning, two channels I watch (clough42 and blondihacks) both post videos. YouTube puts them at the top of recommended every Saturday without fail. clough42 uses his face in the thumbnails, blondihacks uses a picture of her project. Both get recommended. Both channels have grown dramatically over the last year. As far as I can tell, YouTube considers them equally good.
On the other hand, I might not be the target demographic for "I cobbled together a bunch of computer shit" videos (which is kind of LTT's and Jeff Geerling's shtick). So maybe it's the right optimization for that kind of channel. (But if you want revenue, then your sponsors probably want me watching the video and not 13 year old kids with no money. Just saying.)
I will conclude that I pretty much won't click videos like this. Seeing the inside of someone's mouth in a computing video basically says to me "look, the content isn't very good, but I know how to play the game". This is unfair (Jeff, your content is fine), but it's how I feel. It's like seeing the first Google result for "foo bar" being "Cheap Foo Bars Foo Bar Food Bar Foo Bar Compatible With Quuxgorch". I'm not going to click it. You may have won the algorithm, but you didn't win me.
So I bet it does result in higher views, just children viewing it.
Doesn't mean you should do it though, maybe try having some dignity.
It works, optimizing for it makes you a part of the march towards idocracy, but hey, profits!
I don’t click on crap videos and content like that on principle. Interesting or not.
Youtube is gamified. Jeff doesn't play the game, he doesn't get the views. If he doesn't get the views, he doesn't get the sponsorships. If he doesn't get the sponsorships, he goes back to being a just another devops engineer who doesn't make the thing no one else will ever make.
I get it, the face is the worst. But until youtube fixes its algorithm (i dunno, to de-prioritize videos with 'the face') the Jeff's have to do the face to get the views to get the algorithmic advantage to get the views to get the sponsors to make the making worth the making.
There are very few left on YT who continue to make unedited video in the maker space[1][2] and obviously get punished by YT algorithms for that.
Cringe is part and parcel of YT, If we don't like it we should be watching videos on PeerTube, LBRY etc.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/MrTeslonian/videos
[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1xxFkEiAdCVy6foEEUIvw/vid...
Another good one is "DF YouTube (Distraction Free)": https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/df-youtube/
My son and a friend of his were watching some pair of Minecraft streamers, and I couldn’t get follow what was happening. Both men were constantly yelling “WHAT? WHAT? OH MY GOD! AHHHHHHHHH!” As far as I could tell, they were both yelling independent things, and just walking around sheep.
As to why that works, my theory is that we're wired to respond to more extreme emotional displays because we're socially oriented great apes and that kind of information is important for navigating the world.
It's very stupid, but not surprising that those videos get more engagement.
I've literally never watched a single one.
1- I've not watched it
2- Unsubscribed his channel
3- Irrelevant
4- I don't bite any "Geerling" content
The fact is, if YouTube makes up a sizeable portion of your income, and that can increase by a factor of 10% just by making a dumb face, you’d be silly not to do so. It’s unfortunate that this is the way things work, but I can personally look past that to ensure that creators who provide value to me are able to put food on the table.
Think more like 20-30% — and not doing it leads to a much quicker falloff from YouTube recommendations, where over 90% of video views come from.
I overlook dumb thumbnails when the content is actually enjoyable/entertaining/educational.
Sorry, I don't believe profit motive alone should ever be acceptable justification for making the world a worse place. You might argue that stupid faces and clickbait titles don't really make the world a worse place, and if that's the case we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Spend 1 week doing the work of making free content for strangers online and then you can get on your soapbox about YouTube thumbnails. Until then you just sound like a parasite.
Just because you make something and give it away doesn't entitle you to a pass for making the world a worse place in the process. People make systemd for free and get endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, google produces chrome for free and gets endless shit about the ways it makes the world worse, etc.
Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they?
The existence of systemd and chrome have unequivocally made the world a better place. The world would unequivocally be a worse place if they did not exist.
> Besides, lets be clear here: if the goal is to produce and give away videos they don't need to optimize for generating clicks, and therefore ad revenue, do they?
You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life. He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online. That’s clearly his passion and it’s a net benefit for the world. To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content. To support himself he must optimize his view count to get his ad revenue to a minimum amount, as well as generate other revenue sources.
This should all be obvious to any functioning human so either you are completely detached from reality or you have some problem with independent creators needing money to live. But then why? It’s a job like any other, except in his case his job provides you with free high quality technical content.
Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free.
> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life.
Incorrect.
> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online.
Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words.
> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content.
Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do?
> It’s like you have a problem with independent creators needing money to live.
Quite the contrary! But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"... with the expectation of receiving ad revenue from our views, a not-insubstantial portion of which were admittedly provoked by exploitation of human psychology.
> Whether or not that is true is besides the point. The point is that it is valid to criticise them regardless of the fact that these things were given away for free.
You’re moving the goal post. My initial comment wasn’t because you criticized him. You may do that all you like without any issue from me. My comment was responding to your claim that he was making the world a worse place because of his YouTube thumbnails.
>> You sound like someone who has never made anything independently in their life.
> Incorrect.
Prove me wrong, link me to anything you’ve independently created for others online.
>> He has chosen to make a living by providing free technical content online.
> Let's all take a moment to ponder this particular arrangement of words. Then, lets all take a moment to ponder the meaning of "free".
You’re joking right? Free as in people do not have to pay money to watch his content.
>> To support his passion he needs to make sure he can make a minimum profit otherwise he cannot sustain his work of providing you with free content.
>Why is he entitled to this? What I mean is, why should I consider his ability to do the kind of work he wants and get paid for it sufficient justification for preying on human psychological quirks to get them to do something they, rather objectively, would otherwise not do?
He’s not entitled to anything. This has nothing to do with him doing the work he wants. You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people.
YouTube gives everyone the ability to create custom thumbnails. Should he make one that’s all grey? Obviously not. Accusing him of psychological manipulation because he puts the effort into making his thumbnails more appealing is ridiculous. That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation. Given the option, it’s only rational to make appealing thumbnails and appealing art just the same. Intentionally choosing to not do so would be more concerning.
> But we're not paying this creator are we? This creator is "giving" us their product for "free"...
His content is unequivocally free, no scare quotes needed. Most people get value out of watching his videos. Also advertisers make money from people watching it. It’s a win-win. Not everything is zero sum. You aren’t paying just because he’s earning.
Sure, in a very literal interpretation of the word "free", the same interpretation that would allow me to say "I'm free to not pay my taxes".
> You accused him of making the world a worse place for styling his YouTube thumbnail in a way that maximizes the number of people who click on his video. That’s obviously silly when his videos are adding much more to the lives of many hundreds if not thousands of people.
Can you not see how much this reads like marketing copy? You make it almost sound like they're doing the world a service by getting them to click on the video (thus generating money for them) they otherwise wouldn't have.
Putting that aside, as I mentioned elsewhere I am not convinced by the "ends justify the means" argument on display here.
> That’s like saying artists who make more appealing art are engaging in psychological manipulation.
They are, but that's also precisely what they're selling. We view art with the expectation and desire for it to manipulate us. I suppose you could make the argument that at least some people actually want that from youtube thumbnails, but I would point out that that is roughly equivalent to saying people actually like the addictive qualities of lootboxes.
At that point then, maybe the thumbnails do make the world a worse place, but I believe that’s offset by having more of the good-quality videos produced (since more time can be spent on them if you don’t have to work 2 jobs).
I’d be interested to hear your perspective on this. Obviously the same utilitarian calculus doesn’t apply if the content a channel is producing is crappy alongside the obnoxious thumbnails.
There is an argument to be made that engaging in this metric-chasing behavior will invariably lead to worse content anyway. After all, if there was a lot of demand for the content being produced then such tactics shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Over time, the kind of content they produce could continue to regress towards the mean, which is garbage.
So how do you justify the existence of this comment, given that the electricity used transmitting and storing it has contributed to global warming?
arguing over stupid faces just for the sake of arguing, however, absolutely does not add anything to the world...
If somebody tells me now that I get a 20-30% salary bump right now and I need to make a silly face once a day I ask back: where do I sign?
You can easily justify all that to yourself for selfish reasons. That does not mean that I have to think it is ok.
I’m looking forward to the day that I can retire my spinning-disk NAS, but at $700 per 8TB SSD I think it’s going to be a while before they’re cheap enough that I want to take that leap.
Like this article concludes: Using a Raspberry Pi for an SSD NAS is a huge waste. There are plenty of low-power Mini-ITX or smaller x86 boards with substantially more compute power than the Pi.
I'm not sure if any NAS is cost-effective when you use SSDs, aside from maybe a cost-effective SSD cache (Maybe a $100 to $250 1TB L2ARC cache, depending on the speed of the SSD you get).
Most of the average NAS HDDs top out at speeds that are within the Pi's performance realm, though software RAID and ZFS both bottleneck a bit, so you can't get a full 2.5 Gbps (2.3 Gbps real-world) through the Pi to the disks.
It's not just the price - SSDs are not a good choice for long-term storage, especially if they're not powered up continuously.
Modern SSDs last long enough that I can cheaply upgrade in 5 years to something else before any of the drives likely fail.
If one or even two drives fail, I'm covered by Raid-Z2.
Continuously powering solid-state drives is really not a big deal. The 10 Gigabit ethernet adapter in my NAS would probably have more idle power draw than 6-8 idle SSDs combined. The entire system barely pulls 20-25W at idle.
What percentage of the cost is the NAS components?
The question when it comes to RPi-powered NASes is whether it can do that well and the answer is as everyone expected: not really; the CPU is the bottleneck regardless of the underlying interface the drives connect over.
There's an odd fascination with this specific brand of hardware that I can never totally wrap my mind around. I guess it's probably an easy way for people to try out a Linux based computer with a minimal expenditure, and a launching point for new users to start trying things out. Of course, it's not like RPi has a monopoly on little low powered Linux computers either - there are plenty of alternatives even in that niche (e.g. from Pine64).
> Pi's bus being only Gen 2 and x1 means you're quite limited in terms of bandwidth
Thanks!
Most typical Pi 'server' builds slap all that IO on top of the Pi 4 model B's USB 3.0 bus.
It has good network connectivity. 2.5G is a nice option for homelabs and actuall advanced home use.
So how did this article enlighten you on software alternatives to Qnap?
Not saying the board is uninteresting, I do like these new PCIe breakout Pi "motherboards". But the whole I built a $5k server is the wrong way to sell it.
Well, you could just install your favorite Linux distro on a QNAP NAS device. Cost-wise the Pi-NAS option isn't even competitive if you aim for similar spec and form factor and packaging.
a) it's hard to get support on the device when you can't provide any of the configuration dumps they ask (from their software) :)
b) It is not even close to being comparable in price with NASes Jeff tests and shows on his videos and blogs. PiBox (currently on kickstarter) is $250 in a version that has a full solution, including case, pi, charger, LCD, OS, fan, board to connect regular 3.5" drives... It is the same form factor, it has better spec than cheapest qnap devices.
The PiBox case apparently can only house two 2.5" SATA drives, not regular 3.5" hard disks commonly used for cheap mass storage. 2.5" hard disks seem to peak at 5TB per drive so the potential capacity is limited unless you go with SSD at much much higher cost.
The PiBox's 15W power supply leaves very tight margin for its components: Pi4 peak power consumption is about 6.5W, two SATA SSDs will peak over 5W each as well, so you should watch for power for stable operation.
I couldn't find a 2.5" 2-bay NAS model so the form factor isn't identical, but the closest match is probably QNAP TS-230 w/ similar 4-core ARM A53 SoC supporting two 3.5" drives for $199. The obvious downside is that RAM is capped at 2GB and that might be a deal breaker if you want to run lots of apps, but for entry-level storage needs it should be sufficient.
On Qnap and Linux - I'm not talking linux support. It... exists. I'm talking hardware product support. 2-3 years of warranty are standard in my region. But if I can't provide them with "proper" logs and allow them access using their software, they just won't investigate further.
Also running ZFS. I love doing backups via zfs snapshot to an external drive.
I will probably buy this CM4 based unit. Just came here to say "the gear works, does what it says on the label" based on my experience with a prior card. (now unavailable I believe)
I am quite disappointed how slowly 2TB SSD are dropping in price. I use 2TB shucked SATA HDD, they were <$100 AUD each. I actually did think a 2TB unit would by now have dropped to =~ $120 AUD by now. I guess I didn't predict supply chain shock or the stickyness of NAND pricing.
Do you see a linear scaling if those interfaces on the Pi are improved - i.e. is there anything else that looks like a near-term bottleneck if those are improved?
Great article - I love watching your youtube channel as well
I hope whatever comes next will have a more standard PCIe bus, and if nothing else Gen 3.1 or Gen 4, even if only x1 (that bandwidth would be a great boost).
But modern SSDs do, and IMO it is good enough for some stuff even considering the issues. They call it Self Encrypted Disks but I don't know if this feature requires some BIOS specific instructions or special devices like TMPs or if there are special parameters one could pass to GEOM or LUKS to use those encryption capabilities.
Anyone could give me a brief explanation on SED and if they could be used on RPi?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Self-encrypting_drives#Encr...
In the enterprise we use external keyservers like the ones Thales sells.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/53426/i...
The title is accurate and the actual device is shown, isn't it?
At a glance you can see that it's a pi with a lot of attached storage, so the thumbnail actually conveys just about all you'd need to know to decide whether to watch or not. No deception.
Seems pretty reasonable.
Now if instead of the guy's face and his own hands, there was a bikini model doing yoga...
A $5k RPi NAS is indeed ridiculous, and was hoping to see some good insights in here.
I may do another video on a different NAS that has a CPU closer to the Pi's.
But I was using a decent 12v 8A power supply.