For those of us who do not belong to that majority his core argument does not cut any ice: streaming remains vastly preferable.
Must be nice to have fast reliable broadband that supports streaming. Not everyone has this luxury.
About fucking time someone looked into this.
Hey, if 80% is "really very good" then it's a million miles better than youtube. And if the other 20% is "random flashes of color set strange synth-pop with words that make no sense at all" then you're still in front of youtube. Add in the absence of commercials for stuff that is irrelevant at best, but more likely to be subversive or at least just nauseating consumerism that you see on youtube, and yeah, I will stick with the public broadcaster.
And I haven't even got on to the insane "suggestions" that youtube comes up with!
For the handful of shows that are on youtube but hard to find on physical media or a torrent, I have found yt-dlp to be very useful. Download and then put onto your Kodi box (or media system of preference)
Plenty of schoolkids in 1998 needed to look up things like breast cancer (I use it as a very easy example) and other things where a keyword search trips up badly for innocuous content. I should know, I had to deal with the tech support tickets and figure out a way to code around these problems. Neither whitelisting nor blacklisting work.
The "Scunthorpe problem." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are loads of AI nursery rhymes already on youtube, with weird computerised voices and slightly altered lyrics (for copyright reasons?)
Yeah, it's gross and I wouldn't want my kid to watch it... but the alternative is equally disgusting, like those weird kids' shows on youtube with real actors, but all the actors do is unbox toys or receive piles of candy.
I'm not giving parenting advice here, but if you need to entertain a toddler with video (for whatever reason) your local public broadcaster probably has a dedicated channel. While it won't be a substitute for real parenting, a public broadcaster tends to be held to a higher standard than internet video, and typically has fewer (or zero) ads. Examples include CBeebies (BBC for kids) and ABC Kids (Australia). I'm guessing there are equivalents in the USA and Canada?
Wow San Jose has it all- asbestos, mercury, what else could you want?
Another site is pretty much anywhere west of Coalinga in central California. Look up New Idria, where the dirt is 15% asbestos. Oh and there's an off road area there.
Yep, nasty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A bit like the former asbestos mining town of Wittenoom, in Western Australia. Fun fact - Australia's richest person, Gina Rinehart, inherited her wealth from the guy who helped open asbestos mining in the area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A really grubby, greedy, selfish family.
The lobbyists working against it use the term 'could cause', implying you could put the stuff in a crusher or something and turn it into fibers, which is true enough I suppose.
If it's in brake linings, it WILL be turned into a fine, airborne dust. That's how brakes work.
+1 on The Economist. The reporting is great and I'm happy to pay money for it. They do a great job of covering global issues. They do have bias, but it's not really "political." You just need to filter out that they will always consider economic growth to be "good." But then again, the magazine is called the "Economist" not "we live on a finite planet and this shit isn't sustainable."
Yes and no. The hype cycle is slowing, but practical applications of machine learning and GPT are permeating more specialties. There are some cool practical applications out there which don't need someone who can visualize vast amounts of data to identify patterns and act on them.
True. But your UID is low enough that you would remember the first dot-com bubble. There were lots of decent products and services that came out of it, but there were plenty of over-hyped, derivative ideas that went bust (and rightly so). In a parallel with today's story, there were also plenty of dotcom businesses in the late 1990s that blatantly lied about what "the internet" would do to make their products and services the best in the world and you should totally invest right now.
It is my understanding that starlink is not nearly as fast as standard internet. Starlink is only for cases when there is no other option.
So, large parts of impoverished third-world shitholes like the USA and Australia, then?
And now for reasons âoeunknownâ the cloud pattern has changed. Couldn't be the thermal updraft from the panelsâ¦..I support renewables. I also support extensive thermal impact modeling for the natural airflow of these places. Placement needs to be in conjunction with natural thermal flows. Balanced as to minimize impact of weather patterns.
If you're worried about "thermal updraft" I worry about what you will think when you learn about urban heat islands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And a bunch of normal black roofs don't even make electricity! If you're worried about thermal effects, you would support the installation of rooftop solar on every existing roof.
THis was a major down draft at an airport KNOWN for these and yet, they did not order belts on. The mistake was the pilots.
You have made the same comment multiple times for this story. What point are you trying to make? It's worth adding something like "as I said above" or something to subsequent comments, otherwise it looks like you are trying to hide something.
They were trying to get out of having to deal with building Firefox and GNOME along with the rest of the system. They largely succeeded, except that Firefox didn't integrate with the system well for several minor versions of the OS after they went to making it a snap. This irritated me enough to start looking at other options, and I went to vanilla Debian for a while, then I removed systemd, and then I went to Devuan as a way of avoiding having to tweak a whole bunch of things as a result of doing that.
Today Firefox offers its own apt repo, so none of this effort is needed to avoid building it. Just use their repo!
Thanks for the info.
But then they got worse, forcing things on users. Then snap, fucking snap. Something that sucks up resources even when you're not using it. It doesn't even do what it's suppose to because it runs mostly as root anyway, they already had a package manager! (flatpak is no better) Now it's installed by default and can't really be turned off.
I was very happy when Linux Mint said they wouldn't include Snap. I'm far from a "power user" but even I don't see why we need Snap. It's easy to update by clicking on the "update" button. Surely that isn't too much to ask of a user?
There is a solution to this. Build long distance distribution lines.
Being able to sell power over long distances smooths out the demand curve, and makes traditional generators that can't ramp up and down quickly more viable.
Solar can also be improved to reduce the changes in supply at sunrise and sunset, but placing some of the panels vertically, to catch light when the sun is low in the sky.
This would be particularly useful in the USA. Solar generation in the western part of the continent could contribute to the evening demand in the east.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison
