What is 440ml to begin with? A propper beer in a can is 500ml, a propper beer in a bottle is 330ml or 500ml. Everything else is a scam.

While Nazi-Germany was infamous for ‘euthananizing’ disabled people, it is sadly not a principle reserved for the right extreme.

Luckily most don’t go as far as right out killing the weak. But sadly there is almost always a splinter group in any political or ideological orientation that shows contempt for the weak.

To use Linux at the military just makes sense. I used to write software for a military contractor and the SW was only deployed on hardened RedHat. I thought to myself that this is a rare case of the military being smarter than the private sector :D

That is why IP/DNS blocks should only be deployed to protect the end-user. Never to enforce some kind of law…

It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ.

That just shows what people want. Just a solid game, playable from start to finish. Due to time constraints i never finished Witcher 3 and barely made it past the prologue of BG3. But both those games are highly celebrated.

They don’t reinvent the wheel. They are just very solid games and come without predatory pricing.

Pretty sure a normal goon would be intimidated by a barbarian. However, bigger physical strength is not always more intimidating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U1FVjRRlXY

Something that sounds like a production flaw to me is how the IRS gets corrupted. Sadly the article did not go too much into detail, but gyroscopes and accelerometers should not be affected by GPS data. Sure, if they do not sync up with current data, error propagation becomes a problem - especially on long flights. But i reckon gradually depreciating data is better than maliciously wrong data.

The article mentioned, that large plains have 2 GPS receivers. The spooving seems less traditional (sending wrong data with more power), but more sending a lot of incomplete data to confuse the receiver. This should introduce a desynchronization of the two receivers present, and alert the internal systems. Since it is detected, that something went wrong with the GPS, the 3 IRS can calculate the position from recorded data. This is a fallback and accuracy will depreciate. But if the pilot is aware it could still be valuable information. Additionally it is more scalable than air traffic control having to navigate affected planes.

I agree, that the snail mail comparison limps. I just included it, since you brought it up initially. Lets drop it for now.

You are arguing that simply broadcasting an analog signal fulfils delivery, even if no device is receiving it. This deviates from your initial technical limitations argument, but lets assume this is true. If broadcasting a signal without caring whether it is received or if it is, by how many devices, fulfils delivery. Then a streaming service simply needs to make their advertisement available (eg. ads.mestream.com or as clickable content on mestream.com). The ads are available for everyone and no one cares whether or how many devices access them. Most streaming services go further than that and programmatically force people to watch those ads by playing them before the main-content or by similar means.

But we know that TV stations operate differently from how you described. If no one would care if and by how many devices the signal is received, there would not be any pricing difference. But since the tech allows to know rather accurate how many devices receive a signal, a spot at 8pm is much more expensive than 3am. So we know TV stations and advertisers using TV do care about how many devices receive that signal. I would go even further and say they actually care about how many people see the advertisement. But since the technical limitation does not allow this insight, number of devices is the closest value to monitor.

I am repeating myself, but YouTube not wanting to provide services to people who neither pay a subscription or watch ads is within their rights. Whether it is a viable business strategy will show. But for you to call using an ad-block theft, that just doesn’t make sense. Unless you also call it theft, to turn off your TV during commercials. If it becomes a technically and legally viable to analyse how many people are watching those ads, it would become theft to close your eyes.

Edit: changed the URLs, so they do not point to an existing service.

You didn’t answer my question though. If someone turns off their TV during commercials, the content is not delivered. If someone puts up a “please no ads” sticker, it becomes illegal to put advertisement in the mailbox (at least where i life). In both cases the materials are not delivered. Is that theft?

Your argument hinges on technical limitation: Since it cannot be confirmed whether snail mail advertisement was looked at, the delivery person gets paid for putting in the letterbox. Since the TV station does not know exactly how many people watch their commercial breaks, they get paid for broadcasting. Since streaming services can relatively accurately check how many times an ad was played, they only get paid for the exact number and it is stealing to not download it.

TV stations nowadays have much more advanced capabilities and they do know rather accurately how many devices are watching their signal. So if an advertiser wants access to this data and sees that people turn off their devices during commercials as @Dontfearthereaper123 described - should the advertiser be allowed to pay less? If the advertiser pays less, does turning off your TV become stealing?

If YouTube started to (legally) access your webcam. Would closing your eyes and plugging your ears during ads become stealing?

The code is not obfuscated. The person i linked to even formatted it nicely. I do not have the time or energy to go through all of youtube’s JS. But the 5s everyone is talking about does target every browser the same. Serverside the code isn’t altered based on browser detection.

It clearly isn’t theft to use an adblock. It is simply electing what contents are played on your own machine. If it was theft to not download ads, it would be theft to grab something from the fridge during TV ads. Ad-absurdum we would end up in that black mirror episode where they force you to watch ads and lock the room.

That being said. I believe it is within googles rights to make the life of not paying customers hard. Whether it is a smart decision, is another question.

I know that you are memeing - but some ppl probably don’t have the background to see the difference.

A ping does not contain a http header containing a user agent. The response to a ping is not a webpage - and even if it was, your console won’t execute the JS.

I said that i found different articles blindly copying. But i did not say 404 did so ;)

The code is still present when spoofing the user agent or even using a freshly installed chrome. The demo video loafing faster after spoofing can be due to many different reasons.

If you want a better break down of what the code could be used for, this guy foes a good job: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

Most of the articles writing about it seem to reference following reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/k9w3ei4/

Following code is pointed out:

setTimeout(function() {
    c();
    a.resolve(1)
 }, 5E3);

While this is a 5s timeout, the code itself does not check for the user agent. So wherever the code is the 5s timeout will occur. The code also does not seem to be injected server side. I spoofed my user agent and for good measure installed a fresh google chrome, both times the code was present. So this code cannot be used to make any browser slower without making the other browsers slow too.

There is a response to the reddit post, which most articles seem to take their intel from. IMO this response does a good job at exploring what the code could be used for and points out that it is more than likely not for slowing down Firefox users: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

I am amused by thinking that many journalists seem to take this story from a post on reddit, without even reading the direct responses - or just copy from another article.

This is not correct.

Most of the posts/articles reference following reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/k9w3ei4/ . It shows the code from your screenshot. However the code does not check the user agent and is not injected server side (I checked by user agent spoofing and using a freshly installed chrome). So it will run on every browser and cannot be used against some specific ones.

There is an answer to the post everyone seems to reference, which goes a bit deeper into what the code could do: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

Yes, there is a 5s timeout in youtube’s code. However, it is not aimed at Firefox users.

The same code shows up on a fresh chrome installation without any extensions. And the code does not check for the user agent. So the 5s timeout is not there to make Firefox a bad choice for youtube. Following response to your link goes a bit deeper into what the code could mean: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

Guys relax. Most of the ‘research’ comes from this reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/k9w3ei4/

It points out following code in youtube’s polymer script:

setTimeout(function() {
    c();
    a.resolve(1)
 }, 5E3);

But exactly this code does show up on a stock installation of chrome too, and it does not check for the user agent. One of the responses goes a bit deeper into what the code above could do: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

It is rather clear, that this code is not aimed at firefox users to slow down their loading time.

Are you talking about suicide or near death experiences?

If suicide, i fully agree.

Without being an expert on NDEs: As much as i understand it can be induced while minimising the risk. So if the risk can be reduced to about the level of base jumping - i would agree on the ‘their body’ stance. and ppl that are genuinely inches away from death have not much of a choice anyway.