Because these data centers are at best overstressing utility grids and elevating prices for everyone and at worse running dirty generators and poisoning entire communities, for a start.
Unless you have very specialized needs, the driver experience on Windows is "turn the machine on". The driver update experience is "connect to the internet" and occasionally "reboot". That's it.
Linux is significantly easier than it was 20 years ago but still not as easy in general.
I've been building machines myself for nearly 30 years, including multiple in the last 5, and I assure you I've needed to do nothing besides connect to the internet and let it get updates each time.
> If your repo requires a colleague's approval before merge, and that colleague is on level 2, still manually reviewing PRs, that stifles your throughput. So it is in your best interest to pull your team up.
Until you build an AI oncaller to handle customer issues in the middle of the night (and depending on your product an AI who can be fired if customer data is corrupted/lost), no team should be willing to remove the "human reviews code step.
For a real product with real users, stability is vastly more important than individual IC velocity. Stability is what enables TEAM velocity and user trust.
Imperfect does not mean ineffective. Every time you make something more difficult it reduces the number of people who will do it.
Pardon my 1990s metaphor, but:
* If you have no DRM and people can just share the install disk, they will do that and piracy will be universal
* If you implement a CD check, yes, people with CD burners can bypass it but those are far fewer. Yes, industrial shops can mass-produce pirated CDs but not everyone is willing to buy those.
* If you implement even more stringent restrictions such that duplicating the CDs is significantly harder (to continue the metaphor, do something weird with the sectors that requires CloneCD instead of more generic ISO-ripping software) and now you're down to people with specialized hardware/software
* If you go further and implement software DRM checks, they can be bypassed, but now we're down to the portion of the market willing to download sketchy crack programs that totally aren't viruses, the host of the website swears. This is a *much smaller* group than those that would just grab an official install disc from their friends.
etc., etc. These measures do not have to be perfect to be effective. There can still be pirated copies available, but if the effort to get to them is sufficiently higher than buying the official copy (and that threshold is different for different people) they have served their purpose.
Most techie people I know ripped their DVD collections. Many ripped their Blurays but plenty didn't because it requires specialized software to get around the DRM. Only a handful of them have ripped their UHD discs which require specialized software AND specific hardware AND flashing a specific firmware on that hardware.
The vast majority of DRM protected content (or at least majority by watch time) available in UHD via torrent in a matter of hours.
People like to stay away from torrents, because it carries significant risk in many jurisdictions.
But the only reason UHD versions are only available via torrent and often not as streams or downloads is bandwidth cost.
I can't see how it has any thing todo with DRM.
The only thing it maybe cut's down is sharing within friend groups. But even then it only takes one to figure out how to set up a VPN for torrenting.
The whole point is that if it is so easy everyone can do it without asking, it will be more widespread than if there are hurdles in the way, no matter how minor.
"Cutting down sharing in friend groups" is exactly what they hope to achieve.
I have so many people watching off my plex that I should start charging them for second ISP line. And most of my friends are not technical people. This is my way of saying that streaming is available a well.
>>Most techie people I know ripped their DVD collections. Many ripped their Blurays but plenty didn't because it requires specialized software to get around the DRM. Only a handful of them have ripped their UHD discs which require specialized software AND specific hardware AND flashing a specific firmware on that hardware.
>The vast majority of DRM protected content (or at least majority by watch time) available in UHD via torrent in a matter of hours. People like to stay away from torrents, because it carries significant risk in many jurisdictions.
Sounds like you're proving his point? If stripping DRM is so trivial that anyone can pop in a bluray and rip it (like ripping CDs in itunes), piracy would arguably far worse. Pirates today have to brave shady torrent sites and the risk of getting C&D letters. Asking your friend to make a copy is far more accessible.
>No. The bottleneck isn't "getting the files", it's sharing them.
It's that hard to upload a file to google drive and share a link? Is your model of the average person a bumbling idiot that struggles to do anything other than opening tiktok and flicking up?
With streaming content, the barrier to just copying it is already as high as pirating. You don't just have a file you can email to your friend -- you have to install and use software to capture the video and then handle the big file that results, on your phone, which is awkward. And that just gives you one movie which in isolation is barely worth anyone's attention to begin with. By the time you've figured out all that, you could have just figured out how to torrent, or even easier, find a free Chinese website that streams the pirated content to your browser just like the original service.
Pretty much. The path of "figure out how to screen capture the entire DRM-unprotected movie as a video and send that entire file" has about the same level of resistance as "find a link to a pirate streaming site that already has the movie on it and send that link". Maybe more.
>The path of "figure out how to screen capture the entire DRM-unprotected movie as a video and send that entire file" has about the same level of resistance [...]
The biggest flaw with this logic is that screen capturing tools specifically don't work on DRM protected content. Moreover if you're trying to imply making a screen recording is some sort of black magic to normies, you must be living in the 2010s. Nowadays both iOS and Android have built-in screen recorders, and on desktops you can use something like loom, which works off a browser.
The biggest flaw with your logic is the utter lack of it.
If I could rip K-Pop Demon Hunters with a screen capture app to obtain a file I could share with a friend, I still wouldn't do it. Because finding a torrent is simpler and faster. I would get a very similar file, but so much faster, because I didn't have to keep the screen running at x1 for the full duration.
And finding a shady website that has it available is simpler and faster still.
>If I could rip K-Pop Demon Hunters with a screen capture app to obtain a file I could share with a friend, I still wouldn't do it.
Well no, because the lack of DRM wouldn't just mean you can manually screen record netflix. It also means you (or someone else) can write an app to screen record netfilx for you, or skip that altogether, similar to something like yt-dlp. After all, if somebody wants to rip youtube (DRM free), they don't screenrecord it, they find some random website/tool off google.
YouTube is not just DRM-free, but cost-free. One of the things you can pay for is "enhanced bitrates", and while you can yt-dlp them if you auth (maybe?), you won't find the random download sites offering it.
Even if money is no object, if you want to watch bluray-quality 4K content your only choice is to buy the physical media and get it shipped to you (and then use some horrible proprietary player interface). I'm not aware of any streaming services offering the same bit-rates at any cost.
In my case, the in-browser DRM is what is making things more difficult. Whenever something uses the DRM checks, one or both of my monitors turn off. I am not interested in troubleshooting this beyond disabling DRM in my browsers. I don't generally pirate any media, but it might actually be easier than troubleshooting this hardware problem.
Community members are a finite resource. Moderators are a downright scare resource.
When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community and are left with a toxic cesspool that no one wants to visit. Your moderators will burn out and leave as well. That's a very reliable way for your space to die.
Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it, and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win.
> if you restrict moderation to stuff like gore and porn, then you don't need that many moderators.
Have you ever been involved with moderating even a small subreddit or Discord server? I'm on a server with one moderator and it routinely gets spammed while the guy is asleep.
> can't people just unfollow or block others whose opinions they don't want to see?
How do I block people BEFORE seeing the opinions I don't want to see? Trolls can roll up a new account for every single post they make, if they want to.
> there is no obligation to refute bullshit to begin with.
No, but if you're neither blocking nor refuting it, then your community is going to quickly become majority bullshit.
it seems to me that the networking design is flawed. just to give a simple example: whitelisting (only seeing content of friends and followees) versus blacklisting (seeing everything ranked by an algorithm). wouldn't whitelisting already solve most of those issues? that would actually be my preferred modus anyway.
No, because that puts the effort of fighting bad actors on everyone. It means that every day you have new trolls spewing hate in your comments, and that your users have to constantly keep blocking trolls who follow them (and who recruit other trolls to join them) until they get tired and leave the platform.
This isn't an academic debate, we've been seeing this play out online for at least 30 years. Probably longer - I wasn't around for Usenet's heyday but it wasn't immune either.
Only allowing posts between mutual friends is instant messaging, not a social network. Discovery, engagement, and platform growth comes from people wanting to hear from and interact with followers who they don't necessarily follow themselves.
i think you are trying to solve a problem that in my opinion should just be skipped. i don't want to be part of a social network where some algo decides what i see. all i care about is what my friends do and maybe the friends of my friends. and that's it. that was the golden era of social networks, when precisely this was just the norm until they discovered that they can make more money by messing with the feed. no incentive to mess with the feed is what i'd expect from a non-commercial solution like the fediverse. or - at least allow for configuring my feed. if somebody wants to be exposed to all sorts of people - do it. i don't.
That may work for you, but it does not work for anyone running a platform and dealing with the needs of all users. That requires real moderation for both legal and practical purposes, as previously described.
Because it overwhelmingly attracts a certain demographic of people who have a higher-than-average rate of various paraphilias as well as interest in software but such arguments are a bit taboo to discuss even if they are quite self-evident.
I liked the Internet better when it was all nerds and only code cared, rather than gender identity or listing neuroses in own's social media profile as if it was an audition for an echo chamber choir.
I’ve seen the Internet from the 1980’s until today. It has always had people exploring gender identities and public sharing of neuroses. Mostly nerds, though.
> what's there to win? there is nothing to win for anybody.
There are ideological battles to be fought by all sorts of parties - convincing groups to hate each other, to support or oppose the governments in power, to spread division and destroy societies.
There are trolls who consider it a battle to be won, and the more they succeed the more everyone else leaves the platform.
The party currently in control of the United States is there largely due to people who were fed divisive narratives (often in online channels) to make them hate other groups and a significant number of them consider it more important to "own the libs" and "hurt the right people" than to have the government actually improve their own circumstances. So yes, there's absolutely things to be won.
I listed some of the real world consequences already. Allowing disinformation to spread and assuming that people will figure out what's wrong on their own does not scale and does not work.
Dismissing the stock apps as "shitware" without bothering to try them or offer specific examples of areas where Opencam is better does not inspire confidence in your opinions.
Full manual controls does not mean "better". I've been a photographer for more than 20 years using everything from fully-manual (no battery) film setups through modern mirrorless bodies. I know the tradeoffs between shutter speed, ISO, and aperture, I know how to manual focus.
....and most of the time I don't want any of those, especially on a phone, where I want a clear photo of a stationary object and the phone's automatic settings get it right the first time.
If something allows full manual controls but takes two seconds longer to be ready to shoot it is significantly worse as a camera for most of my use cases.
I'm not asking for confidence. Folks can use their own critical thinking and judgement. I expressed sincerity. Some concur, some don't. I'm not trying and will not try to please everyone.
The current state of software is to some, myself, deeply offensive and many have passionate opposition to it. If you are into stockware, you won't ever find me in your way. But you'll not bully me into not expressing my opinion either. Shitware defines it perfectly to the very type of person bothering to use Fdroid and freedom respecting devices.
What dark patterns is the Pixel Camera app using, or what bad things is it doing with my data? In what way is my camera app infringing on my freedom? "It was written by company X I don't like" is not an answer - why should I replace my camera app specifically?
One negative of the Pixel camera app is that it forces Google Photos as the gallery app, even if Google Photos is disabled or not installed on the phone. I think there is a third-party shim app that essentially redirects requests to Google Photos towards whatever gallery app is set as default, but that should not be necessary.
@Arainach - Because the option to reply is disabled:
I am not sure, as I haven't used that app. What I can say, which may or may not be relevant to you is as follows:
1) Open any Google based device and do the equivalent of /Settings/System/DeveloperOptions/RunningServices/GooglePlayServices
You can peruse around just Running Services if you please, and see plenty there, but be sure to view Show Cached Processes too.
Under Play Services, you will see approximately 24 services, some reasonable, some not. Crisis Alert, Emergency Services, Vestiges of Contact Tracing rebranded, etc.
Try using Google Maps without BT and WiFi scanning, and just pure GPS. Maps won't work.
Try disabling Google Play services, or Play Store and watch Fdroid apps break, and the phone malfunction.
2) Go to /Settings/Apps/See All/Show System and behold a plethora of verified shitware, much of which cannot be removed even through ABD.
Then ask yourself Why? Most of these services are unnecessary. You, presumably, purchased, rather than leased or rented your device. So why can you cannot decide what runs on it? Many do not care. I do. I get zero reimbursement for this data mining shitware.
...or me, I say, if they need that shitware running so badly, buy their own phone and stick it where ever they want, but not on my person. We have entered a paradigm where everyone thinks Because They Can, they can just do whatever they choose on the devices of others. And what happens? We get stronger and stronger devices while the landfills engorge with waste, so that we can support a metadata whorehouse on our personal devices. If you support that, I do not oppose you, I oppose it on my system, as do others, which are the type of people I tend to direct such comments to.
No offense was intended. A comment above drops in merely to say Open Cam 'kinda sucks'. I do not downvote it, nor do I agree. I just carry on.
Thats interesting. My 5 year old Ryzen laptop can transcode 4k faster than realtime, which is what I mean mean by "these chips". Modern Ryzen, which is what the subject is about.
Quick Sync is invaluable for low powered processors, my old Intel embedded Wyze can do several streams.
"faster than realtime" doesn't mean much if it's in a device that's supposed to do more than just transcoding (such as serving a web app) or if you need multiple transcodes, etc.
Even on modern chips, transcoding is quite expensive.
People who are running Plex generally are running on servers also serving files, web apps, and who knows what else. These devices are often running 24/7, so both overall cost and power efficiency are big concerns. I wouldn't want to rely on my server being at high CPU usage most of the time - for power, heat, and overall reliability concerns.
I have no idea who you are arguing with, or what your problem is, but its like you've invented something on the internet to get angry about.
I asked the following in my original question because I have literally the same concerns, and I've found transcoding support with AMD to be a bit flakey with these media server apps.
> Is it actually using the iGPU, or just "brute forcing" it?
reply