gila

Well the good news is Widevine is very expensive, and doesn't work. It's not as simple as right click / save target as, but Widevine decryption is why you can torrent any of the shows/movies on those streaming services.

Everytime someone requests a video on those services, the service pays a fee to Widevine. $0.50 USD per request for the first 30k requests/month. How much you think Google is willing to pay someone for you to watch cat videos for free?

Direct revenue is logically a better model for creators, but I don't like that the share of youtube premium revenue is determined by a black box. If it's distributed according to my total monthly watch time, how can anyone say for sure whether the direct revenue split for a given channel >= potential advertising revenue had I watched without premium or adblock? I don't think even creators could tell you based on the analytics available to them via Youtube.

I canceled and set up memberships on a few channels instead. That way I actually get something out of it (member perks), and I know that at least my favourite creators get 70% of those amounts. Also, sponsorblock

For when part of the herb that's loaded in your pipe doesn't get ignited by capillary action and you need to put the flame directly to it to get it to ignite. Since you're trying to manipulate the position of the flame it's easier for your fingers to get in the way. It's more of an edge case and you can just get better at using a normal lighter, so I'd say this is just for viral marketing if it's real

edit: and djeep lighters are better for this anyway

It's a false dichotomy. We can't make it so only Google can spy on us, and conceding to Google has no impact on other malware. Besides, it's the largest advertising company in the world by a large margin, with a near monopoly on online advertising. It probably wouldn't even make a difference.

That's pretty cool! But hell, I bet even Siri could do it. My gripes are with the google VA in its current state. I can't just call out "Hey Bing" and get an answer from my phone unfortunately

The only thing I want it to do is use simple context when searching something for me. If I have a sports event in my calendar, tickets saved to my wallet, and I say "Hey Google, what time does the {team} match start today?", it currently gives me a garbage answer linking to a Reddit post where someone asked that a year ago or something. The ecosystem already understands the info I want in this situation, they have all the data points, theres no sophisticated logic required to connect them. But Google Assistant can't do it, making it pretty useless other than for setting alarms and stuff. If your question isn't on the list of discrete preprogrammed functions then it just searches what you asked, which for my case should actually be "'{team} fixtures" or something. So it's often faster to just search manually in the first instance rather than trying to learn the obfuscated scope of what Google assistant can actually do.

JW what "the lung damage" you're referring to? EVALI is widely understood to have been the result of people vaping black market thc carts with a thickening agent that is unsafe to vape. There hasn't really been any specific general "damage" done to the lungs of the population by vaping otherwise. And as someone from Australia it's hard to imagine 'government just wanting to get rid of them' as a conspiracy theory. They have been trying to get rid of them, they just suck at doing it.

Never heard Big Clive deny covid though, that's off-putting.

Aus here, for complex dental I can claim up to $800 annually on my extras cover, need braces for around $8000.

Edit: forgot to mention it'd only have been ~$2000 around 2003 when I was first told I needed them, but my parents, whom paid off our house with a year's combined salary, couldn't afford it. My dad argued it should come out of his existing child support payment, and I didn't get them.

Have you considered that those aren't the best places to get a good sense of the rational argument behind increased awareness of social inequalities? All the described platforms skew toward younger audiences and ineffective moderation - you were likely talking to literal children trying to come to terms with their inability to reconcile their morality with their environment, especially from areas that skew conservative.

When I said actual leftist content I meant, pick an example of a person identifying as woke whose view you don't share, then vet your position by investigating the opposing argument and reflect on whether that person was offering a fair and balanced representation of that argument. If it isn't, then you can't attribute their slant to the school of thought they claim to represent solely based on your subjective experience reading comments on social media.

Bollocks. I don't believe you have seen too many people identifying as woke. People that hold the beliefs you're talking about don't generally identify as woke. You're talking about attitudes attributed to wokedom entirely by conservatives trying to rile up their base. They're using moral panic via the culture war to politically destabilise in an environment where they have no policy to bring to the table that anyone wants, and you've fallen for it. Go consume some actual leftist content and try to critique it the way you are now in good faith. You won't be able to.

What does woke actually mean to you in this context? Are you just referring to the way convervatives have appropriated it? Because that's exactly what woke is

They're still regulated under Title 1, just not as much. Theres much less of an obligation to set a fair price, for example. More so pointing out we can't necessarily rely on net neutrality as something that generally protects anyone from anything anymore. It only prevents business from doing specific things that are seen as bad business, the consumer isn't really in mind