This might be a feature fit for the pro tiers. I would really like it for our QA testers who'd want to include that information but still aren't that technical to know all the places to look for that information.
I think the reason for having the permissions for all sites is for when you want to use the instant replay feature on the off chance and you realise that there were no permissions enabled for the specific domain.
I'd be pretty annoyed if the bug is not reproducible and I lose that chance of generating a bug report.
Users that might customise their system a bit by digging into the settings are usually more inclined to give a detailed report in case they encounter a bug or have a general knowledge of what to look for when requested for some information in my team's experience. Sounds much more like an edge case.
Going through the linked issue, it seems that the fix has already been merged and should be part of the next invidious release.
But it still is a fact that Google is trying to limit access to YouTube through alternatives like yt-dlp and invidious by constantly trying to break stuff.
My hypothesis is that Invidious is small, unimportant and unprofitable enough that Google just does nothing to care for it. It's not being tested, there's no QA, and the impact on Invidious isn't considered at all when planning API changes.
If you're taking a walk in the forest, you don't care if you're crushing insects under your feet. You do nothing to deliberately crush them, but you don't walk extremely slowly all the time in case there's an insect nearby.
It's long been known that Google's weapon is change; they've been doing that with web "standards" too. For YouTube, I guess the next stage in the cat-and-mouse game is to automate fixing it, and I even dare say that this new AI stuff might come in handy for that.
The culture I find myself in, in 2024, is one of war; unrecognisable
from anything I've seen in "peaceful civilian life" before. It has no
resemblance to business, to markets, to value, to a lawful society of
fairness, utility and cohesion. What happened to us?
I don’t think anything happened to us, so much as your memory is flawed. We’ve never evolved beyond base self-interest, we’ve just become much more productive at extracting value from every aspect of life.
I'm genuinely sorry for you that you feel your culture has become
nothing but an extractive free-for-all. There remain people who still
aspire to treating others as ends and not means. Extraction is not
productivity. To produce is to create. Your comment kinda validates
what I was hinting at more though; that BigTech now sees itself as in
all-out "do what though wilt" conflict with the civil population. It's
a cyber war in all but name - though we still pretend it's
"business". At some point the population are going to figure the rules
have changed. From that point I'd give FAANG a few months to a
year. Most analysts have figured that a cyber war would be
inter-national rather than intra/civil conflict. We'll need a backup
plan for Google/Microsoft etc unless they're radically neutralised (by
government breakup or similar)
People have generally resorted to referring GPT-4 Turbo as GPT-4 since it has been in preview for ~4 months and can mostly be used for production loads.
GPT-4 Turbo is priced $10/M Input Tokens and $30/M Output Tokens.
Ollama is just easier to use and serve the model on a local http server. I personally use it for testing stuff with llama-index as well. Pretty useful to say the least with zero configuration issues.
It is fascinating to see so many open-source alternatives trying to find a solution for P2P file-sharing, with no sort of inter-op possible, just like Apple's AirDrop and Google Nearby Share are incompatible with each other.
OSS projects try and bridge the gap. There’s NearDrop for receiving Google’s Nearby Share on MacOS, and opendrop for sending Apple’s AirDrop via Linux (There’s also an android app that you have to build yourself that does the same, though I can’t remember it’s name).
Assassin's Creed Mirage launching on iOS shows that Apple is taking gaming seriously. A large part of the presentation was talking about the new GPU and the newly developed shader architecture. It will be interesting to compare the numbers once the devices are available.
It'll be interesting sure, but porting struggles have never really been about the numbers. Porting to iPhone takes time because the API is starkly different from consoles or Linux/Windows systems. Apple won't publish your game unless it's using Metal, there's no way around it. Games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil have been touted for the same purposes in the past, but they never signaled any major internal shifts.
I think if Ubisoft will see good adoption from the mobile gamers, it may very well be the push for them to consider porting their game library over to iOS. After all, the mobile market is pretty damn huge.
Hey, I thought Blizzard, Larian and Nightdive would change the gaming landscape on Mac/iPhone for years now. Despite having first-class ports of many titles, the value proposition of most devs porting to Metal still doesn't line up.
This is not the first Ubisoft, or even first Assassin's Creed game to get released on iPhone. I don't see any reason why this time will be different than the others.
A large part as in the part of the presentation where Silicon was being talked about. GPU is the main focus of A17 Pro, with the performance cores being upto 10% faster and no significant numbers to show for the efficiency cores.
Yeah I must say, have got quite used to this arrangement now and this has started to feel natural to me after almost a year of using the MacBook keyboard. Kind of perfect layout for me with the full height function row with media keys and the inverted-T arrow buttons.
And that is one recurring problem I see across HN in recent times, where people merely make comments/claims based on only reading the title and completely disregarding the contents of the article shared.
It might be that the title may be clickbait-y, but that is I guess to be expected in this day. Someone reading has the choice to just not interact if that title is too much bait.
I have been on HN a lot more since ditching Reddit recently and somehow I think it's actually worse than Reddit with commenters not reading the article
At least on Reddit people make jokes. At one point the most-gilded comment ever was a (honestly, pretty funny) one-line joke reply to a paragraph long heartfelt comment about grief and loss.
Here it's a loose game of word association. For example, title says "GNU" in any context so we get 300 comments with unrelated anecdotes about Stallman. The comments section becomes stories about whatever random nonsense is in the top 2-3 comments. When it was being published, n-gate[0] was great at highlighting this.
