zarenki

This argument is even more ridiculous than it seems. During the copyright office hearing for this exemption request (back in April), the people arguing in favor of libraries talked about the measures they have in place. They don't just let people download a ROM to use in any emulator they please. It's not even one of those browser-based emulators where you can pull the ROM data out of your browser cache if you know how. It's a video stream of an emulator running on a server managed by the library, with plenty enough latency to make it very clearly a worse gaming experience.

It's far easier to find ROMs of these games elsewhere than it is to contact a librarian and ask for access to a protected collection, so there'd be no reason to redistribute the files even if they were offered, which they aren't.

On top of that, this exemption request was explicitly limited to old games that have been long unavailable on the market in any form, which seems like an insane limitation to put on libraries, places that have always held collections of books both new and old.

All of that is still not enough to sate the US Copyright Office, the ESA, AACS, or DVD CSS. Those three were the organizations that fought against this.

Anbernic devices in particular are known to ship with an SD card that's preloaded with a fairly large game library. I own a RG351M which did indeed include a cheap card loaded with both the OS and a collection of games by Nintendo, Sega, and many others, plus some strange rom hacks. I immediately swapped that card out for a better one with a better CFW and my own files.

Most other notable names in the emulation handhelds space like Retroid, Ayn, and Ayaneo expect users to be able to provide their own files instead, which I'd say makes more sense.

USB-C video is usually DisplayPort Alt Mode, which uses a completely different data rate and protocol from USB.

Even using old 2016 hardware, a computer and USB-C cable that both only support 5 Gbps USB (such as USB 3.1 Gen 1) can often easily transmit an uncompressed 4K 60Hz video stream over that cable, using about 15.7Gbps of DisplayPort 1.2 bandwidth. Could go far higher than that with DP 2.0.

Some less common video-over-USB devices/docks use DisplayLink instead, which is indeed contained within USB packets and bound by the USB data rate, but it uses lossy compression so those uncompressed numbers aren't directly comparable.

For that portable monitor, you should just need a cable with USB-C plugs on both ends which supports USB 3.0+ (could be branded as SuperSpeed, 5Gbps, etc). Nothing more complicated than that.

The baseline for a cable with USB-C on both ends should be PD up to 60W (3A) and data transfers at USB 2.0 (480Mbps) speeds.

Most cables stick with that baseline because it's enough to charge phones and most people won't use USB-C cables for anything else. Omitting the extra capabilities lets cables be not only cheaper but also longer and thinner.

DisplayPort support uses the same extra data pins that are needed for USB 3.0 data transfers, so in terms of cable support they should be equivalent. There also exist higher-power cables rated for 100W or 240W but there's no way a portable monitor would need that.

The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.

I feel like that purpose has already been undermined by various changes to copyright law since its inception, such as DMCA and lengthening copyright term from 14 years to 95. Freedom to remix existing works is an important part of creative expression which current law stifles for any original work that releases in one person's lifespan. (Even Disney knew this: the animated Pinocchio movie wouldn't exist if copyright could last more than 56 years then)

Either way, giving bots the 'right' to remix things that were just made less than a year ago while depriving humans the right to release anything too similar to a 94 year old work seems ridiculous on both ends.

I switched from Chrome to Firefox in 2019 because that's when Google adopted Manifest V3 and I never looked back. There were already articles then describing how it'd break ad blockers, and Firefox had at the time just recently released their "Quantum" overhaul which drastically improved responsiveness.

I'm a bit surprised it took five years for Google to drop support for Manifest V2, but the threat has long been there.

Legitimately playing 4K blu-ray video on a PC without cracking the DRM requires an insane combination of requirements:

• Windows 10 (not 11)
• An Intel processor between gen 7-10 (nothing newer because Intel ditched SGX in 2021)
• Intel integrated graphics (no nvidia/amd)
• Monitor that supports HDCP 2.2 for DRM (some 4k ones don't)
• An approved optical drive
• Proprietary playback software which costs about $100 USD, separate from the cost of hardware and Windows
• Miscellaneous other requirements for the motherboard features, bios settings, etc.

Meanwhile MakeMKV can rip them on basically any Windows/Linux/Mac system with a compatible BDXL drive.

Likewise, I'm far less hesitant to accept buying digital console games than video because I generally can expect that once I download a game on my one device that I'll pull out the same device whenever I want to play it and it'll keep working when offline and even after the servers are gone, until the hardware fails. Modern games' physical releases rely so heavily on updates and DLC that the cart/disc you get isn't complete anyway; buying physical effectively becomes a digital game with an extra point of failure (and partial resellability). PC gaming complicates things but at least some games are available completely DRM-free there.

With video content sold online, streaming directly from some server is always the focus. As soon as the server disconnects you become unable to watch by default. Even if some service lets you pre-download within its app and watch offline (which probably won't work indefinitely without checkins anyway), that'll defeat the portability expectations for watching your videos on any device interchangeably.

Blu-ray video isn't ideal considering you cannot watch it on a phone, tablet, or linux system without cracking its DRM, but that's still way better for lasting access than anything else major movie/TV studios are willing to let consumers access without piracy.

I bought a Milk-V Mars (4GB version) last year. Pi-like form factor and price seemed like an easy pick for dipping my toes into RISC-V development, and I paid US$49 plus shipping at the time. There's an 8GB version too but that was out of stock when I ordered.

If I wanted to spend more I'd personally prefer to put that budget toward a higher core system (for faster compile times) before any laptop parts, as either HDMI+USB or VNC would be plenty sufficient even if I did need to work on GUI things.

Other RISC-V laptops already are cheaper and with higher performance than this would be with Framework's shell+screen+battery, so I'm not sure what need this fills. If you intend to use the board in an alternate case without laptop parts you might as well buy an SBC instead.

This board has the StarFive JH7110 SoC. That processor has previously been in very low power single board computers like StarFive VisionFive 2 (2022) and Milk-V Mars (2023), a Raspberry Pi clone that can be bought for as low as $40. Its storage limitations (SD/eMMC rather than NVMe) show how much this isn't meant for laptop use.

Very underpowered for a laptop too, even when considering this is intended for developers and doesn't need to be remotely performance competitive. Consider that this has just 4 RV64GC cores, the cheapest Intel board options Framework offers are 12 cores (4P+8E), and any modern RISC-V core is far simpler with less area than even an Intel E core. These cores also lack the RISC-V vector instructions extension.

I'm not completely sure but I think they removed it at some point after the public backlash (which was 3 years ago now). For the Windows version at least, there apparently used to be an option during the installation wizard for setting whether telemetry is enabled or not. Most Linux distros never had the telemetry at all. I don't know about Mac.

It is open source, but had some controversy. Most prominently the addition of telemetry a few years ago, which was never included in the builds managed by Debian or most other distro maintainers. They also added a Contributor License Agreement which lets the Audacity project change its own license (even to a non-foss one, though they promise they won't) without needing to have the change approved by any individual developers.