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.

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 other benefit with Costco is that they have an extremely generous return policy.

Some obvious stuff has different rules (electronics is 90 days, stuff like tires that have clear expected lifespans have their own rules), but it is extremely liberal. And my experience is that I pretty rarely have to use it, because while not everything is a premium product for a bargain price, they tend to ensure that the suppliers for products they sell have reasonable build quality and make stuff that isn’t trash designed to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Connectix_Corp.

The courts aren’t. Nintendo is.

Emulation has already been litigated to hell and back. It’s very clearly legal, including relying on users pulling a blob or two from their hardware for the whole thing to function.

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.

I’ve had decent experience with nobara with a 2080. I had a couple hiccups early, and had to reinstall basically right away, but after that it’s been solid.

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.

You should hate it as a manager. You’re filtering out every single quality candidate because only a deranged nut job would even consider such an unhinged request. Submitting a video, in and of itself, proves they are not worth hiring.

You don’t need to process every candidate. Just randomly take 5%, or 1%, or .001%, and do a real hiring process. Anything at all is better than requiring a video application.

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.

There’s also that.

But purely on the premise of “you should take the time to record a video merely for the pleasure of maybe having us look at your application”, their expectations are way out of whack.

This isn’t like when Google put scavenger hunts or puzzles or whatever in ads and gave job offers to people who solved them. The people who got hired by those ads were following through out of curiosity/the fun of solving the problems, and that wasn’t the main/only way to get a job. It’s just a new absurd demand trying to push the threshold of what’s a legitimate ask.

The scary part is presenting it as a fucking privacy feature with no consequences.

Your company requiring video submissions for a fucking application is the easiest “this company is batshit insane and there’s no possibility working for them could ever be worth it” red flag I’ve ever seen.

That’s not abuse.

If the developers choose to support that hardware, they have a reason. In either case, there is no way to use open source software that’s abusive, with the exception of stuff like Amazon taking an open source project, modifying it without distribution so they’re not obligated to share their changes, and selling the product as a service (at a scale that makes it extremely difficult for the authors to compete). That’s against the spirit of open source even if it wasn’t foreseen when licenses were written and is hard to legislate.

Using open source software to save money isn’t.

This is like saying putting logs on a fire is “one or two breakthroughs away” from nuclear fusion.

LLMs do not have anything in common with intelligence. They do not resemble intelligence. There is no path from that nonsense to intelligence. It’s a dead end, and a bad one.

I wish there were more cards.

I have played it a decent amount, but I probably wouldn’t still play it if it wasn’t also on my iPhone (there’s a “plus” on Apple Arcade that looks identical, too).

I like Monster Train better mechanically for the reason that it does feel like there’s a lot more variety, though I dislike how short the runs are to build a deck with. (I’d like Slay the Spire to go longer on a good run, too).

I haven’t been too far on ascensions. I don’t think they’re really more entertaining. I mostly do the daily runs because at least there’s variety there.

None.

The actual “single core”, “multi-core” were basically fine last I was aware, but they went so far into apeshit meltdown about the fact that AMD was offering better value than Intel with Ryzen (which is kind of back and forth since, but AMD is the reason I could get a 16 (real, capable of demanding single core loads too) core for $500 a couple years ago, not too long after Intel was selling 6 cores for more than that.) that it undermined everything else.

Anyways, UB’s owner didn’t like that AMD had good shit so he kept changing the “gaming/desktop/whatever” grade formulas to tilt the comparisons to Intel using more and more hilarious mechanisms. It started with a reasonable “you don’t really benefit from games past 4/6/8 cores” and de-emphasizing super high core counts that hadn’t really been an issue before, but it quickly degraded into obviously cheating hard by whatever means necessary to punish AMD, with even worse diatribes in the descriptions to match.

Abusing their hard work to buy cheap devices and get their longer OS support for free is not cool.

This is literally a core principle of Open Source. You can charge money if you want, but anyone is fully entitled to distribute your work for free.

It is not and cannot be abuse.