r00ty

I mean for advert breaks, there are projects to do this to recorded tv automatically (with varying degrees of success depending on the config and the channel).

That is, you record the TV from either a TV receiver card, or streamed live channels to disk, then run this process on the mkv/mp4/ts, and it will either create a set of chapters marking the ads (so you can skip them), or it will just remove them entirely.

I don’t think it would transfer to “live” TV quite so readily though. Because it does scan the whole program to find things like logos etc to help work out where the adverts are. But, I mean a lot of the work has been done.

For removing all product logos. I mean, I bet we’re not far from the processing power to make it possible. But, probably a fair bit of effort needed.

I can imagine the “AI” chips being neutered for these kind of tasks, like the “low hash rate” Nividia cards.

I think this overall is a better idea. I’m going to say this because, I thought I’d look into rust today. So I installed it, setup vscode to work with it etc. And it’s all up and running. I thought I would port over a “fairly simple” C# project I wrote recently as a bit of a test.

While I’ve generally had success (albeit with 30+ tabs open to solve questions I had about how to do certain things, and only making it about 20% into the task) I’m going to say that it’s different enough from C, C++ and C# (all of which I can work with) that I really don’t think it is fair to expect C developers that have day jobs and work on the kernel in their spare time to learn this. It’s fundamentally different in my opinion.

Now, I don’t condone any bad attitude and pushing away of rust developers from the project. But there’s no way they’re going to want to do anything to help which involves learning a new language. It’s just not going to happen.

Likewise, C is not a language most new developers are learning. So, I feel like over time there won’t be so much of an influx of new kernel developers and any Rust based kernel could find itself with more contributors over time and taking over as the de-facto kernel.

In terms of Redox (not looked into it yet). So long as there’s a different team working on the userspace tools. I would say the main task should be getting a solid kernel with drivers for most popular hardware etc in place. The existing GNU tools will do until there’s a kernel that is able to compete with the C one. But that’s just my opinion.

Ah, so the kind of crypto bro, that instead of a fistbump, does a diffie-hellman key exchange instead?

Here’s what I think. Both opinions are correct.

Rust is sufficiently different that you cannot expect C developers to learn rust to the level they have mastered C in order to be working at the kernel level. It’s not going to happen.

I don’t really know too much about rust. Maybe one day I’ll actually mess around with it. But the one time I looked at a rust git repo I couldn’t even find where the code to do a thing was. It’s just different enough to be problematic that way.

So I think probably, the best way IS to go the way linus did. Just go ahead and write a very basic working kernel in rust. If the project is popular it will gain momentum.

Trying to slowly adapt parts of the kernel to rust and then complain when long term C developers don’t want to learn a new language in order to help isn’t going to make many friends on that team.

I would agree, but there’s been at least two updates in the last six months that restarted my machine before I even got to see the pending restart warning. I use it every day and shutdown if I won’t be. So the restart happened less than 24 hours after any warning if there even was a warning.

That has the potential to lose things I’m working on. Windows pathetic attempt to bring things back falls woefully short of functional.

Flash up alerts to say there’s critical updates, but the action to actually restart should be a human interaction.

When you post in a thread you get an ID for that thread. When you post in a different thread you get a different id.

That’s what I said. You don’t need any ID to federate the messages. If you reply to a comment the nesting is based on the comment/post ID and not the usernames.

You couldn’t track a users posts after the fact, and I think that’s kinda the point.

Not so sure that’s true though. If you look at a 4chan threads in some boards, you can recognize the individual anonymous’ from the ID next to them.

I suspect it’s using either a cookie, or the IP address to track a user and while not storing that info, generating an ID hash from perhaps a unique ID for the thread + their details.

No reason you couldn’t federate using the same. But, even without that, each post and comment has a post ID and replies would be tracked that way. Just, you’d need to remember which replies were your own.

The home instance could store for a thread some info about posts/comments from an IP or cookie too and highlight them. But that info wouldn’t be federated.

I actually don’t think it’d be a problem, really. But, is this something missing from our lives? I’m not so sure.

I don’t think users should reward the behaviour. If they actually lost money because of these decisions, they would stop making those decisions.

But, we both know enough people will bend over and take it.

But, in terms of cost it can be a good move. It’s just for us, it makes at best, no difference.

Pretty much how it always works with business.

Well, I would say it SHOULD bring overall prices down. If the cost to build the top of the line model comes down to say the same as the mid-range model AND more people are say buying up. It means that competition would push overall prices down.

But of course not, it benefits the companies most, and given the choice of lower prices or more profit, they’ll choose the profit every time.

If they go subscription only (because recurring revenue is the current business buzzword, so of course they will go subscription only) then overall cost for the life of the car will definitely be higher yet “feel” more affordable.

But, I think they should not accept dual nationality. Make them burn their passports at the border!

Yeah, my point is, comparing them to constitutional amendments doesn’t make too much sense for the rest of us.

But you know, I think they do have trial by jury. Just, I think like the elections there, the jury gets told the result, before they decide it.

If they want to own guns, no problem. The government will supply them, and even provide transportation to a place they can use them. (I hope the /s is implied here).

I’m not sure if that story is onionesque or real. Now, that uncertaintly is a problem with the modern world.

Dude! They only work if they’re on tight!

Well, most countries aren’t going to have the same constitutional rights as the USA has. In the same way, the US doesn’t give their citizens the same rights as those in other countries receive. As such, I’m not sure if there’s too much point comparing the two.

Otherwise. Yes, it’s not going to be a nice place to live, and anyone that chooses this option has only themselves to blame when they realise they made a deal with the leopard that has a history of biting faces off.

You can check to see if you can enable hardware transcoding. I find the delay is usually transcoding building up a buffer and if you have a good GPU/APU in your server it’s often a lot quicker.

Pretty sure on jellyfin by default that is off. Mainly because you need to install some packages to get the devices available under linux usually.

Now, I can “kinda” see the rationale behind optional features on a car being either enabled via software or subscription. I believe the permanent enable price should be the same as if you added the hardware to the car as an option.

As to why this might make sense for a carmaker. In my work I’ve visited car manufacturers before, and from what I could see it’s quite expensive and adds time to support the various options when building a car. You see they have the main production line, and units are pulled off the main line to fit the options at various points and then reinserted and this causes problems for efficiency and price per unit I think.

So, there’s probably a cost saving to making the base car have all the options fitted and having a completely standardized production line. However, the expense is likely going to mean if they sold the base car at the usual base car price they would either lose money, or at the very least, the profit margin wouldn’t be worthwhile.

However, if you know a certain percentage of people will want the options, and you can enable it with software later, it’s possible building the hardware into every car as standard would work out overall cheaper. They might also be able to upsell to more people by making a subscription option, perhaps with maybe a free trial for the first say 3 months of ownership. That is, they turn everything on for 6 months for free, then revert you to the package you paid for. Hoping that you liked some of the features and will pay or subscribe to keep them.

What I don’t like is when this stuff might become ONLY available as a subscription, the overall move toward subscription models for everything irks me a lot. I’d much prefer we still get to choose a package, and have the ability to upgrade later.

So I think my point is, the argument “the hardware is there anyway” doesn’t really work, because they are likely going to install the hardware at a loss, on the assumption (backed up by their own numbers) they will sell enough to make a bigger profit overall.

They also likely bake into the numbers that a very small number of people will hack the car and enable the features anyway. The vast majority will not do this, though.

I did think of a few ways round it (in kbin/mbin) a year or so ago. But, it wouldn’t work unless everyone using ActivityPub recognized it. It’s also really a small problem in reality. It’s likes and dislikes.

Yes, and no. A firewall is still a firewall if it is configured to have all ports open. The Linux kernel firewall is still active, even though its default configuration is, everything open.

My point is, for some reason there are some that are not configured to block incoming IPv6 by default. When that should be the standard home/consumer router default setting. Then the user can open ports to ips as they need them.

You can, and there’s a specific flag to set on nd/ra to tell the client to get other information from djcpv6. But so far I’ve not made it work and also, it likely won’t work on android.

Really the way forward is for routers and devices to implement the same options as exist on dhcp. But, time will tell how that gets on.

This is a weakness of ipv6 but it’s really the lack of widespread implementation that’s behind this. If we were all using it, there would be more onus to get this stuff working.