carewell

That’s not due to censorship though. And yes - both iOS and Android have great adblockers. I use AdGuard Pro on iOS and my experience is as good as using uBlock origin on desktop.

Saying that, I agree that alternative rendering engines should be allowed in AppStore. Don’t think we need an alternative app store for that.

I have worked in IT for a few years and dealt with many very tech illiterate people. Apple AppStore is a relatively safe space for them, if they get scammed into installing an alternative MyApps store with a ton of trackers and other scam software they will suffer tremendously.

Alternatives are not competition in a highly state-controlled environment. It’s an appearance of competition. Exactly what the Chinese government wants.

I mean… yes, censorship exists in many countries, including the US. If China forced _Apple_ to abide by their rules I struggle to imagine how an alternative store would avoid that. Biggest Chinese app stores are tightly managed by the state, same as the entirety of their tech market.

This distinction is very minor. From my perspective there is almost no difference whether I am viewing a curated app list as a web page or as an alternative App Store. This has almost no consumer advantage and a vastly increased risk surface as an obvious downside.

Chinese market is tightly controlled by the state. They have very strict rules for how western tech companies must behave. They have forced even the biggest players to abide by their censorship laws.

And yes, they are out of touch. But not from ignorance - they are intentionally appealing to our sense of fairness while pursuing their own interests.

I have never had a need to install a specific app and then not find it in the default App Store.

I have been using Android since Nexus 2 and iPhone since 6s. Never in my life I felt like I have experienced censorship in default app stores.

If they are against the monopolized market make a clear argument, preferably consumer-focused. Don’t hide behind “censorship” and abstract ideas that have proven not to scale - such as users should be able to chose who they trust. This shows such an insane disconnect from the reality of the vast majority of consumers that it’s laughable to include it.

And as usual, a great example of a censorship free open market - China.

I watched it twice and hated it. Being confused by the unintelligible dialog is a big part of why I hated it.

I wonder if we are discussing different broadcasting options. If the incoming signal is stereo then adding a 3rd speaker shouldn’t make any difference. If the incoming signal is 5.1 then you either have to downmix or to add more speakers for a better experience. Just using 2 speakers for 5.1 might result in a noticeable signal loss.

I see, thank for explaining. Yes if you have the option to receive more than 2 channels then I can see how that would give some flexibility. I didn’t realize that TV channels offer 5.1 (I don’t own a TV set).

Saying that if you are receiving a stereo signal - which I expect is the default option - then adding another speaker or changing the amp won’t make any difference, right? Or is there some amp processing technique that improves even a stereo signal?

How would adding a 3rd speaker change anything? The broadcasted signal is still a 2-channel audio, right? Is the amp just going to transform it to M/S and use mid channel for the center speaker?

Ah! Did they forget to mention that blockchain is a glorified linked list?

I think parent commenter's argument is that it's hard to get excited about crypto just based on the fact that it allows some people buy drugs online. While millions of investors lose a ton of money to crypto scams.

Splitting hairs could be a reasonable expectation but at this point right after the FTX debacle it's not warranted.

Any sufficiently complex system can have minor benefits while overall be considered extremely harmful. Cancer can make you lose weight. Nazi Germany built great highways.

What are you talking about?

> it all comes from the same place

Which is?

> a small amout of scams

A small number by which metric? Is FTX collapse small? Was Bitconnect small?

> the blockchains are decenteralized and free for all to investigate

What does this have to do with anything? How can you prevent a scam by looking at the decentralized blockchain? At a maximum you can try to read contract source code, but even then only a tiny number of experts would be able to catch potential issues.

Are they using these small pieces of hardware that look like a calculator? Something similar is offered by several UK banks (slide your card in, enter code, sign a transaction). Again, not sure if you understand the vast gap between this and the work required to handle a hardware wallet.

As a counterargument: many more complex financial instruments existed for decades now and are not widely adopted because of both the cognitive load and the specialized software needed for participation. Adding hardware to this mix does not seem like a step in the direction of mass adoption.

Just to be clear, I am not saying we should not innovate in this space. On the contrary, the current state of hardware wallets is unacceptable. The only way to make this a viable option is drastic innovation. Just repeating "not your keys, not your crypto" and "get a hardware wallet" is disingenuous.

That's an oversimplification. I would argue that the more technologically complex inventions had to go through multiple rounds of adjustments in order to be able to appeal to the masses. And those inventions that could not do that effectively remained very niche.

Having a hardware wallet solves very little for small-time investors (the 99%) as they are in this to speculate, not to keep their savings for the next several decades. With everything moving online, it's close to impossible to convince even more tech-savvy people to plug in a USB dongle every time they want to make a transaction. You could say that then it's their own fault if something goes wrong as they "don't own the keys", but historically this type of blame-game did not last. Government regulation and insurance is a much more effective way forward.

To be fair both Kubrick and Tarkovsky probably felt dwarfed by the likes of Vertov, Eisenstein, or even Chaplin. Specifically in terms of pushing the envelope. These were different times with different envelopes.

Villeneuve innovates in a different space, maybe not as philosophical as Tartovsky, and not as symbolic as Fellini... but I don't think that language and that storytelling would work nowadays anyway. There is also Nolan with his very sophisticated world building. Yes it's all pretty mainstream, but so was Kubrick and Tarkovsky (at least in the USSR).

You mention Tarantino (which I personally don't like), but there are many lesser known directors from the 90s-2000s with a fantastic filmography. Kim Ki-Duk and Noel Gaspar come to mind. The world of cinema has not stalled, maybe we need to look outside of Hollywood more eagerly (but then again, neither Fellini nor Tarkovsky where Hollywood).

Personally I have no problems with voter ID laws (especially if they are implemented over time with an appropriate level of support). However, I don't fully understand where you stand on this crypto/KYC topic - it almost seems like you are half-trolling, half-serious. Buying crypto without KYC is becoming almost impossible, and hacky workarounds are not a scalable solution. So that's not an argument against or pro crypto.

Are you assuming that people of only a specific race don't know where the DMV is? Now that's racist.

It takes no effort to keep your savings in a bank account. Literally no effort: no knowledge of the financial system, no specialized device ownership, no additional investment.

I have a hardware wallet and to be honest I am more paranoid about it than about my Coinbase account.

I appreciate your sense of humor. Setting up a Linux distro on a USB dongle and memorizing 24 words is definitely the most user friendly crypto wallet solution I have heard about.

I don't think you understand how foreign this concept is to the vast majority of ordinary people. Buying a trusted hardware wallet, setting it up, moving their crypto, storing keys somewhere, storing the hardware wallet somewhere, etc. Plus most investors/wallets own far less than 1 BTC.

OP links to a paraphrasing tool on their website.

Art has no absolute value by itself. Curators and buyers give it value. So if curators will decide that some motel art or some AI art has value - we will see it displayed in a museum. Of course there are exceptions but this covers the vast majority of art pieces.

Why stop at financial products? If a celebrity advertises a car as safe and then someone close to you dies in a crash, should you not hold that celebrity accountable? Why didn't they look into all claims about safety of those cars?

This argument is nonsensical. The only way to accomplish that would be to ban all product endorsements outright. Do you want to hold celebrities who endorsed VW cars liable for the VW diesel scandal? How about actors who endorsed anything that ended up being not what it was presented to be? I hate advertisement and would love for it to not exists. But if we allow its existence you can't expect all participants to conduct a deep investigation before uttering a word.

I don't want to seem like I am defending crypto, but how is selling NFTs a scam? FTX was scam not because it was selling crypto but because it was an actual financial scam, a business breaking US laws.

AI upscaling works incredibly well in my experience.