conciselyverbose

There are a bunch of free channels on the internet that some TVs can just stream without a dedicated app. These channels are supported by ads like cable/whatever channels, but not locked behind a subscription. VLC is supporting whatever formats they use to allow (or make it easier; IDK) people to watch them if they want.

The other part is that they’re working on web assembly to allow sites to use VLC as their embedded video player.

If you don’t immediately throw someone who doesn’t flush off of your property to never return, you’re nasty too.

Discord supports threaded topic based formats as well.

The reality is that for a lot of interactions, a live chat feels better than a forum post. You can very easily do both on discord, though.

It’s not perfect, but the alternatives that aren’t a whole project by themselves building a tool don’t have feature parity, or the user base.

“Monitors” are smaller.

And the minimum cost of entry to anything reasonably sized is double to triple. Changing some settings is well worth it.

It’s really not.

In poor countries sure, but not the US or Europe. You will get sued and you will pay if you do that at any scale.

The problem is that “don’t let people game you” is extremely difficult.

It’s many, many orders of magnitude easier to provide a useful search of sites that tell you the truth about what they are than it is when 99% of sites lie to you.

But still declared them liable for the actions of their users.

Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.

If I put the over/under at 10x male pirate to female, are you taking the under?

I’ve definitely noticed the results suck ass, but this is a nice breakdown.

That shouldn’t work. They should still be unconditionally liable for anything the rep said in all scenarios, with the sole exception being obvious sabotage like “we’ll give you a billion dollars to sign up” that the customer knows can’t be real.

I’m really not surprised. They wouldn’t even want to limit commercial use, because I’d assume companies paying celebrities for little blurbs for company parties and stuff like that is a meaningful chunk of their business.

Hard to take a lawyer seriously when the language is so clear and the direct premise of the site, though. It’s not some obscure power grab in the EULA of a site focused on something different. It’s what you’re getting paid for.

(Humans behavious still mostly eludes me though, totally illogical 🤨)

We’re not rational, but there are patterns. If you’re willing to do some reading Thinking: Fast and Slow is beefy, but helps to show some of the patterns of irrationality in a structured way, from one of the leading experts on human behavior. If that’s too much, Thinking in Bets is a nice taster that still is well backed by much of the same research, but is shorter and more accessible.

"Frankly, Kimmel’s fake requests were funny, but what he did was clear violation of copyright law,”

How?

Cameo sounds like work for hire to me. You pay, it’s yours.

“AR” has always been sci-fi. The details you’re discussing have never been part of the discussion because it was fiction.

This is far more AR than any of the shitty displays that project on glasses (all of which also are distorting and changing the light from the real world) and don’t have meaningful capacity to interact with the real world inputs. Any reasonable definition of AR absolutely is including the Apple Vision. It’s the real world, in real time, with all the inputs and processing capability required to interact with it.

All your other complaints have nothing whatsoever to do with your silly definition of AR made for the sole purpose of excluding the most exciting piece of tech in the space ever. Weight and battery capacity are also completely unrelated to any possible valid definition of what AR is.

They didn’t do a clear coat like everything else ever made lol.

deleted by creator

The “key” is the mapping of cipher alphabet to message alphabet.

There has to be a secret to be cryptography. The meaning has to be hidden without the secret information (though primitive/weak attempts can have a small enough search space to be brute forced). But the content being hidden without that information is the entirety of what the word means.

That’s a terrible definition, but “codes” is doing the heavy lifting.

It is not a code, in that definition, if it does not require knowledge of a key to decode.

It is literally impossible for anything that doesn’t have a secret key to qualify as cryptography. That is the entire defining trait.

Apple hasn’t called it AR.

But it absolutely is AR. If you can see the real world in real time, with additional information on top of it, that’s AR. Your requirement that it not be on a screen is completely arbitrary and has no basis behind it whatsoever.

Because it’s a giant one.

There is no valid interpretation of cryptography that resembles the way you defined it in any way.