conciselyverbose

There are a bunch of free channels on the internet that some TVs can just stream without a dedicated app. These channels are supported by ads like cable/whatever channels, but not locked behind a subscription. VLC is supporting whatever formats they use to allow (or make it easier; IDK) people to watch them if they want.

The other part is that they’re working on web assembly to allow sites to use VLC as their embedded video player.

If you don’t immediately throw someone who doesn’t flush off of your property to never return, you’re nasty too.

The other benefit with Costco is that they have an extremely generous return policy.

Some obvious stuff has different rules (electronics is 90 days, stuff like tires that have clear expected lifespans have their own rules), but it is extremely liberal. And my experience is that I pretty rarely have to use it, because while not everything is a premium product for a bargain price, they tend to ensure that the suppliers for products they sell have reasonable build quality and make stuff that isn’t trash designed to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Connectix_Corp.

The courts aren’t. Nintendo is.

Emulation has already been litigated to hell and back. It’s very clearly legal, including relying on users pulling a blob or two from their hardware for the whole thing to function.

There isn’t guesswork involved. They know for certain that people will. They have network effect on their side. Their entire audience is captive. Anyone willing to leave already has after the hundreds of different “revelations” of how fucking disgusting everything they have ever touched is.

They aren’t selling anything but your privacy. It’s Apple’s limitations on being overt malware that they’d be bypassing, and it is absolutely guaranteed that they would do so the literal minute they can.

Yes, it would.

They don’t leave the play store because, and exclusively because, Google allows them to do anything they want. Apple does not. The literally exact day a similar law goes into effect in the US, it’s an absolute guarantee Facebook leaves the App Store with every single app they have. There’s not even the slight possibility they stay there.

Facebook/ten cent/etc have literally zero reason to stay off the play store. Google encourages them to be malware, and doesnt curtail their bad behavior is any way.

Apple doesn’t. They might not leave while they think they can also destroy the security of iOS in the US, but it is a complete and utter certainty that the literal day any similar law takes effect in the US that Facebook and all their apps leave the App Store completely. They absolutely can trivially walk people through the steps from their website and the apps that are already installed, and they already have the monopoly to force their users to deal with it.

Apple isn’t Reddit, building a market by claiming to be open then locking it down. They built their market because the walled garden is a massively better product.

I literally buy iPhone mostly because of the walled garden. It’s by far the biggest value add they have, and they grew to the scale they are in large part because of the value that adds.

If you want to sell an app on iPhone, you have to follow their human interface guidelines. You have to respect users’ privacy (not enough, but as much as they can enforce). You used to be required to take payment through Apple’s payment methods that make it incredibly easy to track and cancel subscriptions. Courts taking the payment rules away makes my experience worse. A shitty law forcing Apple to allow apps to pull out of the App Store and do whatever they want would make my experience much worse. (Thank God I’m not in the EU or subject to that.) If I was in the EU, the government be stealing a large portion of the value of the phone I paid for from me, to be replaced by stuff I can already do if I really want to.

These laws aren’t giving power to the people. They’re taking away Apple’s power to protect people and giving the power to fucking China through epic.

The problem is that “don’t let people game you” is extremely difficult.

It’s many, many orders of magnitude easier to provide a useful search of sites that tell you the truth about what they are than it is when 99% of sites lie to you.

I’m guessing they’re the leagues they have some rights to. But even assuming they have it solved way before football season it dampens my interest a bunch.

No NFL? I don’t care that it’s the offseason. It dwarves every other US sport. Not having it to select day one is odd.

Edit: “yesterday” instead of “recent games” is just as weird.

I’ve definitely noticed the results suck ass, but this is a nice breakdown.

You should hate it as a manager. You’re filtering out every single quality candidate because only a deranged nut job would even consider such an unhinged request. Submitting a video, in and of itself, proves they are not worth hiring.

You don’t need to process every candidate. Just randomly take 5%, or 1%, or .001%, and do a real hiring process. Anything at all is better than requiring a video application.

That shouldn’t work. They should still be unconditionally liable for anything the rep said in all scenarios, with the sole exception being obvious sabotage like “we’ll give you a billion dollars to sign up” that the customer knows can’t be real.

There’s also that.

But purely on the premise of “you should take the time to record a video merely for the pleasure of maybe having us look at your application”, their expectations are way out of whack.

This isn’t like when Google put scavenger hunts or puzzles or whatever in ads and gave job offers to people who solved them. The people who got hired by those ads were following through out of curiosity/the fun of solving the problems, and that wasn’t the main/only way to get a job. It’s just a new absurd demand trying to push the threshold of what’s a legitimate ask.

The scary part is presenting it as a fucking privacy feature with no consequences.

Your company requiring video submissions for a fucking application is the easiest “this company is batshit insane and there’s no possibility working for them could ever be worth it” red flag I’ve ever seen.

That’s not abuse.

If the developers choose to support that hardware, they have a reason. In either case, there is no way to use open source software that’s abusive, with the exception of stuff like Amazon taking an open source project, modifying it without distribution so they’re not obligated to share their changes, and selling the product as a service (at a scale that makes it extremely difficult for the authors to compete). That’s against the spirit of open source even if it wasn’t foreseen when licenses were written and is hard to legislate.

Using open source software to save money isn’t.

I’m really not surprised. They wouldn’t even want to limit commercial use, because I’d assume companies paying celebrities for little blurbs for company parties and stuff like that is a meaningful chunk of their business.

Hard to take a lawyer seriously when the language is so clear and the direct premise of the site, though. It’s not some obscure power grab in the EULA of a site focused on something different. It’s what you’re getting paid for.