What Happened to All About Android Podcast?
133arc585 @ 133arc585 @lemmy.ml Posts 4Comments 368Joined 2 yr. ago
133arc585 @ 133arc585 @lemmy.ml
Posts
4
Comments
368
Joined
2 yr. ago
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content.
This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don't go down, that doesn't make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.
People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it.
This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn't have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.
In fact, you're touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they've gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can't take peoples' acceptance of the situation at face value. If you've conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn't mean you aren't being abusive.
What are these numbers? Lives lost? Bombs dropped?
Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.
Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn't even the first time I've seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they'll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.
If you truly believe this drivel, you're doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.
He cheated on his wife with his producer, Lisa, who I think he later went on to marry after leaving his wife.
He showed sexually explicit texts between Lisa and himself on air, not just once, but twice. If that wasn't enough, he also showed his penis on air in much the same way.
He's made racist comments on air, including saying "they all look alike" in reference to black people, and saying blacks and hispanics are responsible for all crime.
He's abusive to his employees, such as when he said "Fuck you you’re dead to me" and threatened to punch Brian Brushwood in the face, after (show hosts) Brian and Justin Robert Young were banned from TWiT with no public reason provided. They didn't badmouth Leo or TWiT, not that that would excuse that behavior anyway. He seemingly can't control his anger, even on air, and verbally attacks his engineers for any mistake they make. He also is no stranger to attacking his guests/co-hosts on air.
Sarah Lane, co-host of one of (if not the) biggest shows on the network at the time, spoke about workplace sexual harassment (it might be worse than it looks). His interview with Cali Lewis is rather uncomfortable to watch; there is a tasteful and appropriate way to have the conversation, and then there's the creepiness with which he approached it. Not to mention how inappropriate it was in the context to really have the conversation at all.
Not that I'm generally a fan of this sort of website, but there's a website devoted to documented Leo's disgusting actions. If you can get past the editorializing, it is still useful to document things that actually happened. You can ignore the editorialising entirely and just watch the video clips they uploaded if that suits you.
Overall, my opinion of the man is:
- He has absolutely no sense of appropriate behavior in a given context. Some actions are acceptable (calling out your engineers for repeat mistakes) but not in all contexts (on air); likewise for attacking guests.
- He is a sexual pervert who can't put in the required effort to keep his professional and sex life adequately separate.
- As an employer, he doesn't treat his employees with respect. That's not to mention workplace sexual harassment.
- He only got as far as he did because he had a massive advantage of having his previous TV shows and radio shows--this is how he got most of his early advertisers (most of whom stuck with the network).
From what I've seen, when they say "pushing it down your throat" what they really mean is "existing while gay". If it isn't hidden, it's apparently being "pushed down your throat".
Also, in the real world, people saying how "awesome it is to be trans lgbtq" are saying how awesome it is to be yourself as someone who is lgbtq. They aren't saying it's awesome compared to not being lgbtq (though one could argue there is value in having different-than-the-majority life experiences). It's just another way to imply that lgbtq people are actively trying to "convert" people to being lgbtq.
I can't speak to phrenology per se, but phrenology's modern analogue is, in my opinion, the "genetics" argument. Whereas phrenology was some attempt to "explain" how the apparent shape was indicative of underlying brain structure, contemporary "scientific" racists will use genetic differences to "explain" whatever behavior they want to attribute to it.
If I were an advertiser I wouldn't want to associate with Leo Laporte, to be frank. I think he has been lucky to get advertisers largely because of his radio days; if he hadn't had those ties to start with, I don't think he'd have gotten very far.
Goldman Sachs says India will overtake the U.S. to become the world's second-largest economy by 2075
Jump
Because a file manager app asking for Full Disk Access is not suspicious, and Full Disk Access is one hell of a good way to get access to data to exfiltrate. There likely wouldn't even be suspicion if it also asked for Internet access: if it supports connecting to network shares, you wouldn't think twice about it having that permission.
while currently the core-engine is kept highly encrypted and we do not publish it
Why not? If you're 100% confident it's secure, you should have no issue making it public. If you aren't 100% confident its secure, not making it public is just dishonest and ends up hurting trust when something inevitably does happen. Also, what do you mean that the code is "highly encrypted"? First off, using phrases like "highly encrypted" and "military grade" are already massively suspicious because they're marketing terms that really don't mean anything. Second, keeping the code encrypted (at rest perhaps?) doesn't mean anything; and in order to run the code, it has to be un-encrypted anyway.
There’s a bit of a debate about pros & cons of opening it, regarding confidential comms.
How so? Here are the possibilities:
- Your code is 100% secure:
- You don't release it: nobody trusts your claim of security (and fairly so).
- You do release it: people can verify for themselves that your claim is valid.
- Your code is not 100% secure:
- You don't release it: nobody trusts your claim of security (and fairly so).
- You do release it: you can potentially have bugs discovered for you; or, people will fairly decide not to use an insecure product.
There's no situation in which not releasing code helps security or trust. Security by obscurity is not security.
Anyway we are independently pen-tested by volunteers.
Which is fine as one facet of being verifiably secure, but it's not suffucient. Code can have flaws that pen-testers will not (or are very unlikely to) stumble upon, even with fuzzing environments. The proper approach is to have the code audited and openly-available and to have independent pen-testing of the running implementation.
Not that I was a potential user of your software to begin with, but the way you're describing your product and operations really would turn me off trusting it.
You're right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!
No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.
That's fair, rival does have a different connotation than "competitor", which is a more accurate term here I think.
Is the source code fully available for your product?
I get what you're saying, but it's not just monetary efficiency that I meant there. It's fuel/emissions efficiency that would suffer as well. And that should be of concern to everyone.
You realize localized weather is not always predictable far enough in advance to do much? Moreover, airlines don't require passengers specify their weight when they purchase a ticket, so they can't really plan ahead for going over a specific weight that is itself tied to local weather conditions. Mind you, this could be avoided by building in more wiggle-room, but that is not going to be accepted as a solution because it results in waste much of the time if, for example, you have empty seats because you wanted to be sure that you wouldn't run in to the issue of going over weight.
not rival of Signal, WhatsApp (or similar), but instead a complement for higher privacy
Sure sounds like you're a rival if your bio is accurate. What do you gain from positioning yourself as not-a-rival? Wouldn't it be more honest and benificial to position yourself as a rival, and be very explicit in how and why you are better than alternatives?
Sorry for the several hashtags, it’s just the habit when posting
Why is this a habit though? It doesn't help discoverability, at least not for random shit like #people and #policy and #terms. What is the point of that? Don't all these services have full-text search, where searching for #Signal and Signal are equally effective at finding comments mentioning Signal? And, even if it was exceptionally useful at helping discoverability, it really hurts readability: it becomes harder to scan and is visually cluttered. It takes me significantly longer to read somethign full of #tags than without, and I'm lately likely to forgo reading such a comment entirely rather than put up with line noise.
Yes, I deleted my comment after I checked the command line I was using and testing it out. The CPU usage was because I was using the --audio-format flag with something other than m4a/opus or whatever it is that youtube uses natively. And the file I saw on disk was not the video, it was the audio file in youtube's native format.
For reference, I'm using $ytdl -f "bestaudio/best" -ciw -o "$audioroot/%(title)s (%(upload_date>%Y-%m-%d)s).%(ext)s" --extract-audio --audio-quality 0 --audio-format mp3 "$vidurl".
Says the person with a 4 day old account who's bio is literally marketing-speak for a rival app:
The #messaging application with #anonymous identity, #untraceable content and military-grade #security. AKA the Dark Messenger.
Also, what is this infuriating nonsense where #every #word #is #tagged? #Can #you #not #type #normally? #Or #is #it #automated? #It's #inane. And it hurts readability, which is really the bigger problem.
From my use of this, it downloads a video and extracts the audio stream from it. In fact, you can see this as it leaves the video file on disk while it's extracting the audio, and the audio-extraction process uses a decent amount of cpu (takes a few minutes for long concert sets on my raspberry pi). AFAICT, there's no way to only download the audio without incurring the unnecessary bandwidth and CPU usage.
Edit: I just checked and the CPU usage seems to be coming from the fact that I am asking yt-dlp to convert the audio format. Now I'm questioning whether it is actually the video that I've seen temporarily on disk or just the audio file in the youtube-native format.
We’re giving them our older model stuff from the 90s. Compare that to the mothballed museum pieces Russia is rolling out.
Think about this for a moment. The USA is using its older stuff first.
You look at what Russia is using and you think it's old or not as advanced. Why aren't you making the logical conclusion (which is backed by evidence if you look) that Russia is doing the exact same thing as the USA?
Why is the USA's use of old weaponry simply that--use of old weaponry--but Russia's use of old weaponry is...something else? Corruption? Incompetence? Whatever other excuse you want to come up with?
It's safe to assume that Russia knows that the USA and other countries are going to send older reserves of weapons first. So it's not unreasonable for Russia to not use more than is necessary and bring in their newest and best weaponry.
TWiT only has any value because of the rest of the employees: the engineers, the co-hosts, and everyone else that puts it all together. Leo is not what makes the network have value (though of course he was at its founding). I think the network would be better off without him now. I too used to watch since the network started and was there for some of it live, and eventually it got to the point where I couldn't watch any show with him in it (which sucks because I happened to like SN a lot, among others).
If you mean the editorializing from that drama website, then I'd agree that it has a very clear bias. That doesn't discount what I really wanted to stress though: the video clips and screenshots, which are primary evidence that themselves are not editorialising, very clearly show a pattern of problematic behavior. There is no excusing a lot of what I linked to in my previous comment.
I'm curious who you have in mind here. But I'll say that people have various reasons for associating with others, even if they're not great people. Money, opportunities/connections/contacts, convenience, etc are all reasons that sometimes make people spend time with bad people.
The long-form discussion is not solely enabled by Leo; it would happen just as well without him. In fact, in many situations, it would probably happen better without him. I'm not saying for a moment the network doesn't have value or produce some quality content. My point was, and is, that Leo is a rather nasty person and that if I were an advertiser I would not want to be associated with him.