I respectfully disagree with this assessment. A law is not an absolute boundary, but a societal construct—established collectively and open to reinterpretation as public consensus shifts. As such, it can be enforced as written or challenged and ultimately overturned. That doesn't make it worthless as a trial can lead to a confirmation of the rules considered.
Yes the American media overblow some of the issues for clicks. However you can be arrested for speech and it isn't just threats to violence.
> In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process.
This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You are falling for the same rage bait media (except it is left leaning).
> This isn't new, of course, I remember some time back I was being told how white people couldn't go into Leicester... while I, a white man, attended University in Leicester.
It depends which area of the city. The University will typically safer than other areas of a city. Most of the people there are students and there is campus security.
There are areas of Manchester (where I used to live) and where I am the only English guy (not white, there were Irish people there) on the street. There was significant racial tensions and fights as a result. The guy that bombed the Arianne Grande concert lived a 5 minute walk away. I moved out of Manchester because I didn't feel safe.
Again not a "no-go zone area", but there are problems with racial tensions. I've heard it is worse in some places in London.
> The UK definitely has issues, even ones related to expression, but generally it's a very free place that does pretty well with respect to it.
As someone that lived outside the UK for long periods of time and knew what the country was like before the 2000s. This isn't true.
> Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons.
Actually, most of the illegals being arrested didn't enter the country illegally; they legally entered the country (for example, to file an asylum claim), but for various reasons, they're no longer legally allowed to be in the country.
> This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You are falling for the same rage bait media (except it is left leaning).
You say it isn't true, but then say "many", so it is true, just not in all cases? Just because others are being deported alongside you doesn't change that you are being sent to a foreign prison for speech, and with no due process anyone can be targeted.
> It depends which area of the city. The University will typically safer than other areas of a city. Most of the people there are students and there is campus security.
What are you talking about? I lived in the city—I rented a house with friends from my second year as most do rather than staying in halls (which are in Oadby), I went out all the time all over the place, as did everyone else. I didn't spend three years locked inside the University.
> As someone that lived outside the UK for long periods of time and knew what the country was like before the 2000s. This isn't true.
Given you are willing to claim it's rage bait media to point out people being extrajudicially imprisoned abroad for speech the admin in the US doesn't like, I'm not going to trust your judgement of how good freedom of expression is.
> You say it isn't true, but then say "many", so it is true, just not in all cases? Just because others are being deported alongside you doesn't change that you are being sent to a foreign prison for speech, and with no due process anyone can be targeted.
Reread what they quoted. The statement as a whole is not true, he was correcting the latter part of it that made it false.
What latter part? They did not get due process. They were targeted for their speech, the administration explicitly said so. The post-hoc rationalisation by claiming they are gang members with laughable evidence (mostly having completely and obviously unrelated tattoos) doesn't mean it wasn't for speech, and without due process they can grab anyone and make that claim without any proof.
There would be more enforcement of this if it was the EU / UK.
Generally anything that looks or smells like hacking or copyright infringement isn't a good idea to put on your YouTube channel. I upload Linux videos and I will not mention youtube-dl (or equivalents), anything torrent related even torrenting legal things like Linux install media.
There will be a time when computing is so cheap that ads will be injected to the stream in such a way that it is impossible to remove them without real-time AI detector that indentifies the parts where ads are.
The problem Youtube has is that it wants to make sure you can't skip the ad, so it has to signal in some way to its front end and app that this segment is an ad. That mechanism can and will be used to skip it with other clients. They can put the ads in band of the video stream like twitch does but if they are genuinely indistinguishable then they are also fast forward and skippable.
If they're injecting targeted ads in the stream, then the stream producer must be 'smart'. It's not much of a stretch for it to enforce playing out the segments at approximately realtime (or whatever speedup they want to allow), and to force the advert segments to play out before anything past them. Some sidechannel could be used to inform the client about what's going on and produce a sensible playhead position.
It seems inevitable that this is the end game, and I don't really see viable ways around it for realtime playback. For offline playback, yeah, presumably that sidechannel includes enough information to cut out the ads.
TYT has to mark the ad segment, they are required by law to do it. And no matter how they try to obfuscate it, their own webpage must be able to extract that info, and present it to user. So it is pointless to integrate ads if you are going to provide the timestamps to skip.
Just look how Facebook does it, there is no "Sponsored post" anywhere in HTML, the literally place entire alphabet multiple times, each letter in separate span/paragraph tag, and then use CSS to actually style that into a message of their choice. All of that work just to prevent simple adblocking rules to work.
Laws of thermodynamics suggest it will be easier for ad companies to find a way to spam you, than for you to bypass all of their ads. These real-time AI detectors cannot be very cheap to run/train.
If a human can tell what content is an ad (which is also required to be disclosed by the platform anyway), then an AI should be able to detect it fairly easily too.
They have a financial incentive to bypass our LLM ad-blockers but visual recognition is a fairly milquetoast function for LLMs even today. They will attempt to present ads in an unusual way to fool the models; the models will get updated; they will change their tactics again. It's the same cat and mouse game we play today but fought with LLM models instead. I'm confident we win such a fight.
I am a fairly novice 3D programmer (but experience programmer) and Vulkan is much more complicated compared to OpenGL to even get the basic triangle working.
The basic idea was that you trade more upfront work against a much leaner and efficient render loop, which on its own isn't a bad idea (all modern 3D APIs do that). In Vulkan this idea is just badly executed (e.g. look at Metal for a much better - and much more programmer-friendly - implementation of that same idea).
I understand that. As someone that is doing this stuff for fun and wants something cross platform (Windows/Linux/BSD, I don't care about macs) with native code (C/C++) it just raises the bar a bit too high. I am sure I could figure it out, but it easily doubles the time needed to get going.
Perhaps because you should be using some kind of low/mid-level graphics engine. That's part of the difference between OpenGL and Vulcan: that ogl did more for you, even in immediate mode. Vk came about because getting more performance out of ogl was becoming difficult because it didn't directly expose enough of modern hardware, or only exposed it in a specific less-performant way.
Yes, it takes way more code to start from scratch on vulkan, but that's a trade-off against being able to better optimize exactly to your use case, if you need to.
I am burned out by frameworks in my day job which is basically working in full stack web land and I want to get away from that. So using anything other than libraries is out of the question as far I am concerned. I could have use Unity / Unreal and been further along, but it isn't going to be enjoyable.
I understand there are situations where more performance is desirable and that vulkan fills that niche. However if you are building simpler games, are you really going to need it? If I am building say a puzzle game, do I really need maximum 3D graphics fidelity and performance? I would argue probably not.
I am using OpenGL in my projects for now and if I feel the need to learn Vulkan I will. Almost all the materials online for OpenGL 3.3 are still relevant and unlike web world (where things are depreciated every 6 months) the code still works fine. The C++ linter / analysis tools I am using with CLion throw up warnings but these are normally fairly easily to fix.
