Lurker > s0nicfan

ZechtAurion posted...

And it starts....

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/us/muslim-boy-stabbed-landlord-chicago.html

Western media has blood on their hands now.

It "starts" with this stabbing? What about the massive rise in hate crimes in the UK against Jewish people?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67102528

There has been a "massive increase" in antisemitic incidents in London since the Hamas attacks on Israel, the Metropolitan Police said.

Between 30 September and 13 October there were 105 antisemitic incidents and 75 offences.

In the same period last year, there were 14 antisemitic incidents and 12 offences.

Or the French teacher stabbed to death a few days ago?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67101089

A teacher has been killed and two people seriously injured in a knife attack at a school in France.

The attack happened at Gambetta high school in the northern city of Arras at about 11:00 local time (09:00 GMT).

The attacker has been arrested and is now in custody.

Witnesses say he shouted "Allahu Akbar", or "God is greatest", during the attack. Visiting the school, President Emmanuel Macron condemned the "barbarity of Islamist terrorism".

Didn't know about those? Or just didn't care? Why didn't things "start" with those?

DKBananaSlamma posted...

shit I need a reddit account to see that >_>

Install privacy badger, go into the settings do the below.

Step 1: General Settings > Scroll down to Advanced > Enable all options

Step 2: Tracking Domains > Search for Youtube > Select first option (red bar) for all 3.

This will disable, interfere with any code YouTube is using to detect add-ons. Anything they create (legitimate or adhoc) that would go around this would violate privacy laws - and put them in deep water. They still may enforce bad things, but at least we can put the grenade into their hands. If they want to blow themselves up, might as well let them.

After this extension install and settings adjusted, you wont receive notices, and your ad-blockers will work as usual.

Edits from page:
Edit 1: this was on chrome, but mozilla should have similar features. You are aiming for "learn to block" if youtube does shady stuff that blocks the bypass, they will get info on it and update their app. As well, the tracking domains - which should stop their scripts from knowing if you have an adblocker.

Edit 2: on the odd occassion it says i cant watch, or get a black screen - but a simple refresh and im back to the video. You can also flicker on/off your ad-blockers then refresh and it seems to aid.

Edit 3: please also exit your browser application and delete cache data (should be in the browser's setting around the area you can delete history) - they may try to save data in your cookies - deleting those wouldn't be a bad idea

Edit 4: i also added various other youtube domains and all google domains.

Edit 5: currently works with Mozilla, Chrome, Edge, Brave, and Opera as of 10/13/2023 1:07AM EST

Edit 6: hey youtube employees, if you pay me a consulting fee I can show you a full proof method to win. I say this because whoever greenlit checking browser extensions is a monkey and I could use a lambo urus.

It will eventually stop letting you. That happened to me yesterday. Apparently they're updating something server side like every 5 hours so even trustworthy ad blockers like ublock don't work right now.

The short-term fix is if you refresh the page and then hit stop pretty quickly you can then play the video and the blocker won't appear.

The more permanent fix is to use privacy badger and follow this guide:
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/176ludf/permanent_fix_for_youtube_ads_adblocker/

Supposedly brave browser also works but I can't confirm.

Funkydog posted...

Just tried that on my android and it closed reddit and took me back to the Google search I used to get there.

And you were on the app? It definitely doesn't do that for me.

GEKGanon posted...

Speaking specifically about Youtube, the advertisements used to be far less intrusive, and people still used ad block to avoid them. The more intrusive experience that exists now is the result of less intrusive means being bypassed, which just shows there is no level of advertisement, even a far lesser one, that people aren't going to subvert. It is a snake eating its own tail.

To be clear, in 2022 Google made nearly 225 BILLION in ad revenue. So unless Google is aiming to make a trillion dollars on ads, I don't know what argument can really be made for "we're legally not liable for serving you malware, and we make hundreds of billions a year already just on serving ads, but we're still going to go after the segment blocking ads by making it unbelievably hostile for the majority of the market not blocking ads because fuck you that's why."

Also, folks should be aware that if we cave on ads, the very next step is forcing you to actually engage with them. Patents have already been filed for ad systems that don't let you skip until it confirms that you actually stared at the ad for the full duration.

Google has one that will determine what parts of the ad you're looking at:
https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20130088645A/en
https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/18/4633558/google-patents-pay-per-gaze-eye-tracking-ads

and Sony has one that will do everything from make you say the product name before the ad ends to pausing games to serve ads that you then have to "play" to finish:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454?oq=8246454
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fcrshkk2o1s261.png
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fvv61vse8kum41.jpg
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/sony-patents-ads-that-can-pause-games

Meanwhile there's this other patent that will pause the ad if you're not looking at it to keep people from being able to just walk away:
https://linustechtips.com/topic/1276588-patent-discovery-mobile-ad-serving-platform-will-pause-video-ads-if-youre-not-watching-them/

ClayGuida posted...

I don't get why or how they couldn't just make a Sonic game like Mario Galaxy or Mario Odyssey.

Mostly because, at the very core, Sonic was a tech demo for the Genesis that took off well beyond anyone's expectations. The original gimmick was "look how our guy can move so fast the other console can't even render it." 3D platforming is a lot easier when you're dealing with a short, squat plumber whose signature 3d moves are mostly standing jumps and short dives. You can design an entire mario level that takes 5 minutes to traverse and Sonic would blast through that in seconds. The result is you either railroad players into what are basically QTE segments, you make most of the game playing other, slower characters, or you make gigantic empty worlds that the player blurs past, and neither are particularly fun.

Sega has just never figured out exactly what they would need to do to make a full length 3D sonic game that mostly features Sonic actually fun. Some of it might be a lack of talent, but honestly I don't think it's unfair to say that after literal decades of the trying, it might just be that "go fast, the game" fundamentally doesn't translate to 3D outside of racing games.

Jada keeping Will's dignity tied up in her dirty basement until he offers to watch Star Wars with her.

Funkydog posted...

I'm still confused on the 'back button' issue.

On any android I've ever used, on most apps it just does as the name says rather than change what app is showing. I've a different button to press for changing apps.

Like, if I it now it'd take me back to the list of topics.

Android generally tracks your input history cross-app. So if you open an app, then open another app, then hit back, it'll take you back to the prior app you opened before. On the Reddit app, it will take you to whatever reddit page you last looked at, even if that was like a week ago.

Where this is a problem is mostly if you do something like open a reddit link from a browser or your email, because normally back would take you back to that browser or email client, but Reddit traps you in the app and makes it basically impossible to return to the prior location.

Tom_Joad posted...

You need to add Privacy Badger. Seriously.

Thanks for the info. PB installed and youtube is shut out using this guide:
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/176ludf/permanent_fix_for_youtube_ads_adblocker/

Skankhair posted...

I mean

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/0/0/AAAwUhAAE78U.jpg

Take your pick:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/4/0/AABJX0AAE7Xc.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/4/1/AABJX0AAE7Xd.jpg

Apparently youtube has at least temporarily beat ublock, even with the quick fixes applied, but the current workaround is if you refresh the page and kill the refresh before it fully loads you can watch the video without being blocked. I'm seeing word that Youtube is hyper aggressively fighting this right now - and by that I mean pushing server side updates in 5 hour increments to beat updated filters. Who knows how long they'll do it, but folks might want to start seriously looking at youtube alternatives because they're going scorched earth on this.

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Any way to change it?

It used to be you could just go through the browser so it will behave like any other website, but now they lock you out of content unless you're viewing it through their app so there's really nothing you can do.

rags_alt posted...

I only ever use the internet on my phone anymore so I'm just stuck with them. So far as I could tell googling around there's no equivalently simple way to get rid of them like on PC browsers. It's whatever, I just ignore them.

Ad blockers for Android have been a thing for like a decade. If you're on iPhone you might be SoL, but I want to say there was a topic recently where somebody said iPhone has one now too.

The-Apostle posted...

They fuck they're not if they won't monitor or remove it.

It's the same argument that Facebook and social media uses. They claim that by simply being an aggregator or a marketplace they have no direct control over who chooses to use that platform and therefore it's not their responsibility for what those people choose to do. Which obviously flies in the face of the fact that they do actively choose what content is and isn't allowed on their website, but nevertheless that's the angle they have consistently taken.

Whoever decided that pressing the back button on the Reddit Mobile app doesn't take you to your previous application (like every other app on mobile), but instead starts flipping back to Old pages that you visited, should be banned from industry.

The-Apostle posted...

Link?

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/06/google-isnt-liable-for-scam-ads-ynfante-v-google.htm

The court summarizes: it is plain that Section 230 protects Google from liability in the negligence and false advertising action brought by Mr. Ynfante.

This result reaches the same conclusion that the cited Goddard v. Google case reached 15 years ago, as well as the more recent uncited Calise v. Meta case. It reinforces the simple point: online publishers arent liable for third-party ads. Given the apparent elimination of ad quality standards at Twitter, this ruling is also good news for Musk.

Case citation: Ynfante v. Google LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96074 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2023)

emblem-man posted...

So you'd truly be fine with the ads if it was confirmed to not have malware and they didn't sell data?

If they didn't have any of those then I wouldn't hold it against the service, because it truly would be the only way they are making money. That doesn't necessarily mean that the quantity of ads they choose to serve will be worth my time, though. For example, on something like Roku where you don't have ad blockers I have absolutely shut down YouTube and gone to do other things because the frequency of ads got to the point where the actual content of the video was no longer worth my time.

But ultimately, it's about a transparent exchange of value. Google complaining about ads while quietly not mentioning the sheer amount of money they make on data collected from usage, combined with the fact that they know they can serve any kind of ad and not be held responsible for it, is just them being misleading about the exchange that is already occurring when somebody uses their service.

Why do some people forget that the other half of their business model is scraping an immense amount of user data and then selling it to other companies? They want me to watch ads, fine, then stop collecting my data. And if they want to keep collecting my data and that's not enough for them to make money, then they can put it behind a paywall and I can make a judgment call as to whether their service is worth my money or not.

Edit: also, Google has been found not liable in court for ads that contain scams or malware. So as long as they're not going to be accountable for the content of the ads they are forcing me to watch, then I don't have to be accountable for whether or not I choose to put my self at risk by watching them.

SayHeyyShohei posted...

TIL proof of concept = a product.

Again, I don't see your issue with it being impossible right now. These are working theories towards a solution to a greater problem that will hit society. This technology will be feasible within the next 25 years due to advancement in quantum computing.

If everybody stopped because something was "impossible right now", we'd be living in the dark ages.

Cool, then come back in 25 years and talk about it. This is a company grifting for cash by promising something that you have now said is both impossible and also potentially decades away. They're not doing research.

SayHeyyShohei posted...

So you just completely ignored the rest of my post.

Like I said. A lot of what we are using now were theorized in the late 60s. We would not be where we are today without those theories.

People assume technology s always living in the now when it is exactly the opposite. NASA is decades ahead of where it can be, but they do their work knowing it cannot be applied in practice using today's technology. Limiting yourself to what can only be done now without regard to a future is one of the most regressive forms of human "achievement"

Cool, except we're not talking about a research thrust at a university or lab. We're talking about somebody trying to push a product that they've already trademarked. A product that you yourself have admit is impossible right now. So we can all agree that this is a grift and move on.

SayHeyyShohei posted...

It is a legitimate solution in theory. I agree in practice it would be pretty impossible right now, but so was 99% of what was theorized in the late 60s when it came to computing and look where we are now because of it.

Quantum computing at a consumer level is a genuine possibility within the next 25 years.

</Topic>

I could be reading this wrong, but their little infographic seems to imply that what they're doing is giving every frame of the video its own unique hash, basically a block chain of video frames, which would make it unbelievably computationally expensive to take even a simple home video.

ThyCorndog posted...

al jazeera is a normal news service like BBC or CNN or whatever. there's always going to be bias but they're usually just reporting stuff through their own lens but not straight up lying like fox news

Media bias fact check gives them the same factuality rating as Fox news (mixed).

JuanCarlos1 posted...

She hulk was pretty decent

She hulk was a missed opportunity. It should have been the Harvey Birdman of the MCU but instead it was written by a bunch of people that flat out admitted they don't really know how to write court cases.

It didn't do enough to differentiate itself as a game in the time that it existed. Darkstalkers came out in that era where there were like a hundred fighting games coming out every year and while the characters have absolutely persisted, if I'm being completely blunt the gameplay really didn't do anything special and I think it got lost in the noise.

And then modern capcom screwed up any chance of a revival by doing it in that weird era where they were looking at things like pre-orders of compilation titles as a metric for whether a new game should be made or not.

If it's a diner it should have a counter specifically for single diners.

Not necessarily from the first to the second game, but Saints Row certainly went on a wild ride in terms of tone.

That just means people keep failing. Your company is probably going to get a security audit in the near future and a high rating will legitimately open doors that your company won't have access to otherwise.

I just hope it's a return to the Pierce Brosnan style refined Bond and less the Daniel Craig rough and tumble bond.

He looks.. unbelievably boring. Outside of his special moves being references to the show, all they really showed off is a couple of standing punch strings, a command grab, and some kind of ranged parry.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

Stop talking out your ass. That was never true

That was blatantly sarcasm.

IIRC he grew up really poor and has said before he never wanted to become materialistic because of that.

McMarbles posted...

I envy the dead, Doug. HONK HONK!

I'm reminded of this comic:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/6/AABJX0AAE7kq.jpg

Furries are going to buy up every single box in the first 5 seconds it's on sale and you'll see them up on resale on eBay for like $1,000 each. Someone, somewhere, will post a picture of that Isabelle in a jar. If you see such a picture, do not under any circumstances ask what's going on.

WingsOfGood posted...

First you gotta say where you come from

And you got to stick around long enough that they're not left asking "where did you go?"

It was really only popular because there was so much porn on it. The moment that was banned, everybody left and switched to twitter.

I consider myself a moderately adventurous eater, and that picture absolutely does make them look delicious, but snail is one of those things I just don't think I never going to try.

Love those videos.

He was definitely the best part of death stranding and way more interesting as a threat than Higgs.

Kang's whole gimmick, unless I'm wrong, is more volume than it is raw power. Thanos was a singular threat. An individual kang is nothing and probably makes for great fodder for solo movies, but it's when the collective kang shows up with an army that it becomes a problem.

Which, honestly, I think is a smart move. The next big threat probably shouldn't be another Thanos like figure that's just this entity of intense strength. Having the avengers deal with some sort of alien army or large war that is still a galactic threat is different enough that it won't feel like a rehash.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I definitely don't know why they chose Kang as the villain for an Ant-Man movie. It should have just been MODOK, with the stinger revealing that he was working for Kang. That way, an Ant-Man movie doesn't have to do the heavy-lifting for an entire saga of Marvel movies.

It's because they're trying to do the comic book thing where they put plot critical details into what would otherwise be a side story to force people to go watch it. If the next big villain wasn't in ant-man, even fewer people would have gone to see Ant-Man than already did.

It's like when you're reading a big crossover event and it looks like a character is in danger and then you flip the page and they're just fine and there's a little note that says "to see what happened, go read Excalibur issue #75"

FortuneCookie posted...

Hmm.

It turns out that not every superhero is equally marketable. Yes, they struck gold by having Chris Pratt, pro wrestler Batista, and a talking raccoon in a big budget movie about a group that relatively few people knew about. But that doesn't mean that they can turn any random hero into the next big name. For the most part, people still want the characters they're familiar with.

It'll get better for them when they have free reign to make X-Men movies. I'm going to be pissed though if Wolverine doesn't wear the yellow Batman costume.

Good news from Deadpool 3:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/5/7/AABJX0AAE7fh.jpg

hockeybub89 posted...

Is it a slippery slope when Israel wants to eradicate the entire people? Would you scream "slippery slope" if someone was saying Hamas wants to kill all Jews?

Hamas literally had the global eradication of the Jewish people in their charter. Stop engaging with this topic if you don't know fucking anything about it.

Ricemills posted...

So you can't answer.
You want the erasure of Palestine, but won't admit it.

Troll somewhere else.

Ricemills posted...

Yes and do you think they'll stop with Gaza?
Like the other Palestine territory that has been annexed by Israeli?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Would fixed camera games like the OG Resident Evil by 2nd person because you're not following the player but viewing them from a fixed external perspective?

hockeybub89 posted...

This is a lot of weird pedantry to justify the displacement and genocide of millions of innocent Palestinians. "Well it's not all of Palestine and Hamas exists there anyway, so who cares? Price of war! Go Israel!"

We're literally in a topic asking if Israel's actions in Gaza means the death of Palestine when Gaza is a completely disconnected region that represents like 5% of the landmass of what would be the Palestinian state and is run by a terrorist group that is in no way affiliated with the Palestinian government. That's not pedantry. Try to keep up.