I'm not sure if you realize it, but all forms of digital media playback are streaming. Yes, even that MP4 stored locally on your SSD. There is literally no difference between "playing" that MP4 and "streaming" a Youtube or Netflix video.
Yes, even playing an 8K Blu-Ray video is still streaming.
"Streaming" as most people think of it is "heavily compressed video optimized for low bandwidth being piped over a network", usually with no user choice of resolution, encoding, or playback settings
At the risk of possibly sounding crass, the practical solution is to simply never tell them of the decedent's passing.
Unless the matter of concern is a legal or financial one (eg: bank accounts, pensions, insurance, etc.), quite literally nothing and nobody else requires knowledge that the account holder passed away.
Never tell Valve that your gamer dad passed away and they will be none the wiser and noone will have any problems as you "inherit" his account and its associated games. You're not trying to defraud Social Security as a 150 year old, after all (...right?).
This might work for the first generation of steam users for now, but eventually they might require some kind of verification for old Steam accounts. Also remember that Steam is providing two things - a license for the games and a service to download them. I wouldn't expect a court to agree that a relatively low one-time fee obliges Steam to provide your or your heirs a service in perpetuity.
Why take the chance for games that you can get DRM-free and transfer independently from some live service.
You might be interested to know that the Managing Director of the Fukuoka Stock Exchange was arrested yesterday[1][2] on allegations that he took upskirt shots of schoolgirls. He was caught because his tablet's camera emitted the mandatory shutter sound.
Laws like this serve primarily to deter casual criminals and catch patently stupid criminals which are the vast majority of cases. In this case it took a presumable sexual predator off the streets, which is a great application of the law.
The rejection of woke ideals goes well beyond the US. The Japanese people also hate elements of woke getting into their culture and they don't even speak English.
It thought you were going to explain how "woke" is a bad thing, and how Japanese were counter progressive stuff.
Instead, you give me two links to the current fascist White House propaganda - which makes me wonder if for you, woke is the exact opposite of "christian"?
And a link about a video game which is... related how to woke/progress or conservative/fascism?
What's peculiar is that we are in a situation where we hold so exactly opposite views about... life. Indoctrinated? I could return the exact same thing to you, from the perspective of someone whose families saw the exact same script play thrice: in Italy, in France and in Germany.
> Also, you need help because you are clearly indoctrinated. Wokeism is not Progressive and Conservatism is not Fascism.
No, clearly, conservatism is not fascism. I come from a European, conservatist family, milieu, education; strict, aristocratic heritage (whatever that means today), catholic. It's not an argument of authority, but I do know pretty well, from the inside, what conservatism is, the pretty parts and the ugly parts. And I know what disguises as such and is not. Fascism is of a twisted one of that kind.
However, you visibly haven't noticed, western conservative minds (in the "West" at least) have been cleverly and patiently hijacked by a fascist, white supremacist ideology that has found luck in some technocratic and aristocratic circles, without which it would have no fund, no tools. Precisely what some fought against to death 80 years ago, they are embracing today. And it is no pure accident.
All that conservatives typically value (for short, Christian, patriotic, traditional values) has been used as bait to lure you and others into giving power to something that is the exact opposite, while thinking in good faith that this is good strategy. Twisting actual facts into their own narrative. Raising segments of the society against each other, rather than trying to reconcile and pacify. And unfortunately, given the order in which the scripts plays out, you may not have the time to be sorry at the time they will turn against you, because all those who could have spoken for you will be gone by then.
What an example? You gave me one:
> If "serving every person with equal dignity and respect", "reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work", and "prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion" are "fascist propaganda" then you need help.
This is double-speak. You take it at face value, of course it's positive and desirable. I would definitely support that. Only, if you look at who's talking, what their history is, what the tone of their speech is, what their skills are, you cannot NOT see what the inter text is.
If you look deep, you'll notice it all leads back to a single first country which is decades ahead of "us" in strategic storytelling, and mass opinion manipulation. The damage to democracy is fast, abyssal, and it will take several decades to fix, if ever.
It will never serve the American people. That's a delusion so enormous it's difficult for most of us in Europe to understand. We saw the exact same script play with the Brexit, and they fell for it (although not as bad as it was planned).
The open question is, was this country capable alone of this level of long-time strategic thinking and coordination, or is it helped by a third one which has mastered this type of thinking for much longer?
All the damage that americans are going to face from now on, as well as probably Europe (Brexit was part of it, Hungary fell for it, so did Italia, France is hardly avoiding a far-right authoritarian take over in 2 years, and so on), is the logical consequence of that hijack in motion. The far-rights already had a rise, but they have seen massive financial and logistical support for the past 10 years.
All I can say is that I'm sorry you bought in the Republicans (or whatever is behind) propaganda and hope you'll stay open to the conversation, wherever it happens on your side, and come back some day from the very, very dark place that is ahead.
There's definitely deep difference in the understanding that comes from a USA person and from a European person. "wokeism" is a clever made-up tag, again, because, as it's not a definite notion, you can swipe a lot of things under it, as a lot of you have done with "socialism" or "communism". But it likely means actually nothing at all.
As for "woke", as it means a different thing historically, and is more difficult to take over by the far-right, I guess we don't put the same value into it.
Gosh, you have no idea how far I am from the left in France. And how far I am from the far-right too. It’s not even on the same axis… but to chose between Le Pen (Putin puppet, as is Trump) or Melenchon (Putin puppet as well), I know who I chose because of the team that goes with it, and the balance it gives to the institutions and which one will allow for a return to democracy and which one will trigger a bloody civil war.
Visibly, your refusal to consider a different point of view, your incapacity to argue for your own leads you down a single possible path and Trump gave you the perfect excuses and means for it.
Your perception of history is totally skewed from your lens.
Please don't cross into breaking the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. It only makes things worse.
People who at one point in the past related to the Democrat Party and the Left but no longer do through no particular changes of their own.
>Gosh, you have no idea how far I am from the left in France. And how far I am from the far-right too.
Indeed I have no idea how far you are from the Far Right: You are quite literally calling liberal values like equality "fascist". You are at least so far from the Far Right that ostensibly Center and Left values are Far Right for you.
You need to realize how absurd you are being.
>Visibly, your refusal to consider a different point of view, your incapacity to argue for your own leads you down a single possible path and Trump gave you the perfect excuses and means for it. Your perception of history is totally skewed from your lens.
You are projecting your own behavior upon me (and others). Get some help, my dude.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Just to clarify, when you said "this account" did you mean me or the person I was conversing with?
EDIT: Seeing as I can post a comment I'm going to guess you meant the latter, but I would appreciate clarification if you don't mind.
EDIT the second: It seems I am shadowbanned, so I'll leave an email I guess. It saddens me that an American entity (Hacker News) doesn't support American values, though.
I meant you. You broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly, and we'd asked you more than once to stop doing this.
I did post a moderation reply to the person you were interacting with (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43042302), but they didn't break the guidelines nearly as badly as you did.
In no uncertain terms, the only guideline I've violated as far as I'm aware is the one stipulating no political battles. As far as that, I defer to your judgment with one contention: Everyone else who were and are also engaging in that behaviour should be similarly reprimanded.
As I've written in my email, I've noticed a significant uptick in political threads and subthreads over the past month for fairly obvious reasons. If you are that adamant about the guideline, and that is your right, I hope you police all such (sub)threads much more vigorously in the future.
In closing, I'm just sad at the true colors of this community. I take supporting racism personally as a Japanese-American, and all the other positions like supporting fraud, wanton waste, and selective enforcement of laws (aka social justice) are downright absurd. We will inevitably have differences in our beliefs, but I expected better from a community of hackers and entrepreneurs/investors who would presumably support liberal (libre) values and fiscal responsibility.
"you are clearly not worth the oxygen you consume" is obviously against the site guidelines. Ditto for "Please get help, you are indoctrinated and incapable of holding a useful conversation", "You are projecting your own behavior upon me (and others). Get some help, my dude", and so on.
USA-style Republican today? The thing is… if they were upholding the Constitution, right now, I could name one.
Frankly, all that emerges from the brouhaha coming from the USA sounds like The Onion headlines on steroids. Looks like the alternate reality movies from the Man in the High Castle. Unreal.
McCain could have saved something in the party back then, but the party chose otherwise…
And seeing how a conversation is not even possible anymore…
How does one rationalize electing these people? How does one get radicalized to that point? The very same playbook is run, again, and again. And it never resulted in peace and harmony through history. Never.
You might be interested to learn that Trump's cabinet has at least 9 women, one of whom was the Governor of South Dakota, another who was an Attorney-General of Florida, and another who is a reserve duty Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army.
Most Senate Democrats have voted against their respective confirmations, by the way.
We are quite fine having women as leaders if they are actually competent and charismatic like it would be the case with men. Neither HRC nor Harris were that; the former was reviled and the latter couldn't even speak coherently. The Democrats can easily get a woman elected President if they would simply choose a good candidate with policies that resonate with the electorate.
Pretty much this. Honda was all but begged by the Japanese government to bail Nissan out. Remember that the Japanese government had a role in taking out Renault and preventing a French takeover of Nissan, their political hand was already overstretched.
The merger/buyout collapsed because Nissan is too proud to admit that they have failed and aren't in any position to be making demands.
Also, this is a tangent but with the US Steel buyout/investment from Nippon Steel being a common subject matter these days, remember what Japan did to protect Nissan every time they bitch about the US protecting US Steel. What goes around comes around.
> Pretty much this. Honda was all but begged by the Japanese government to bail Nissan out. Remember that the Japanese government had a role in taking out Renault and preventing a French takeover of Nissan, their political hand was already overstretched.
I know little/nothing about Japanese politics. How exactly does the Government of Japan apply pressure to a public company to merge with another failing public company?
> How exactly does the Government of Japan apply pressure to a public company to merge with another failing public company?
Structure doesn't matter. Culturally government cooperates with companies through "asking" (or pressuring if you like) as opposed to western approach where companies can (and will) do as they please within law/regulatory frameworks. Opposite works as well - companies can ask government and pretty much expect result.
Most of it stems from collective culture and family values and taken as something quite important.
I would imagine by implying that if Honda doesn't cooperate, they would face increased regulatory scrutiny. IE, Honda factories needs to have more safety inspections, vehicles fails to pass emissions tests, a finding that requires huge recalls, etc.
He was, but his corruption was clearly not the reason for his arrest. They were fine with him living like king until he went against the Nissan faction
>Americans selected a president who is against "equity", "inclusion" and "social justice"
Indeed. Our American values are and always have been Equality, Pursuit of Happiness, and legal justice respectively, as declared in our Declaration of Independence[1] and Constitution[2], even if there were and will be complications along the way.
Liberty is power, power is responsibility. Noone ever said living free was going to be easy, but everyone will say it's a fulfilling life.
Then why don't you do all that but instead treating people who are in pursuit of happiness as criminals for example? Why do you need the paperwork and bureaucracy to let people pursue happiness?
The US is a sovereign nation which has a right to defend its borders from illegal invaders. Try to enter or stay in Singapore illegally and see what happens to you.
Quite literally any country with a government worth talking about controls entry of foreign nationals. It is a privilege to enter another country as a foreigner, and that country has every sovereign right to deny you that privilege if they so choose for any reason (usually citing their laws).
The fact that you ignore this demonstrates your bad will in engaging in these conversations.
Good to hear. What are you doing to demolish the visa regime that actually doesn't allow all that? Do you have an ETA for the day when anybody who enters USA will be able to seek employment or start a company or do whatever they want in their pursuit of happiness?
I was worried that you are advocating for work visas, permits, green cards ect, like a silly EU country would do.
In other words pursuit of happiness through bureaucracy. Hope Musk keeps enough of those who pick who can pursue happiness in US then. Otherwise the pursuit of happiness will be pretty slow.
Anyway, IMHO you are putting too much trust in the abilities and importance of bureaucrats or maybe you want them to do the dirt work so you can feel good for yourself and pretend that you like the American way of life(the right of pursuit of happiness kind of things) but secretly want to be European(the bureaucracy that keeps out the undesirables)?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." (+)
(+) terms and conditions apply; did not originally apply to nonwhite men or women. Hence allowing things like the mass internment of Americans of Japanese ethnicity.
> We are also talking much more rightly about equity,
>it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place. Some folks might need more: equitable distribution
This is arguing for giving certain people more benefits versus others based on their race and gender.
This mindset is dangerous, especially if you codify it into an automated system like an AI and let it make decisions for you. It is literally the definition of institutional discrimination.
It is good that we are avoiding codifying racism into our AI under the fake moral guise of “equity”
Its not. What we currently have is institutional discrimination and Trump is trying to make it much worse. Making sure AI doesn't reflect or worsen current societal racism is a massive issue
At my job I am not allowed to offer a job to a candidate unless I have first demonstrated to the VP of my org that I have interviewed a person or color.
This is literally the textbook definition of discrimination based on skin color and it is done under the guise of “equity”.
It is literally defined in the civil rights act as illegal (title VII).
It is very good that the new administration is doing away with it.
So did your company interview any people of color before? It seems like your org recognizes their own racism and is taking steps to fight that. Good on them at least if they occasionally hire some of them and aren't just covering their asses.
You don't seem to understand either letter of the spirit of the civil rights act.
You're happy that a racist president who campaigned on racism and keeps on baselely accusing people who are members of minority groups of being unqualified while himself being the least qualified president in history is trying to encourage people to not hire minorities? Why exactly?
2. Candidate applies and interviews, team likes them and wants to move forward
3. Team not allowed to offer because candidate is not diverse enough
4. Team goes and interviews a diverse person.
Now if we offer the person of color a job, the first person was discriminated against because they would have got the job if they had had the right skin color.
If we don’t offer the diverse person a job, then the whole thing was purely performative because the only other outcome was discrimination.
This is how it works at my company.
Go read Title VII of the civil rights act, this is expressly against both the letter and spirit of the law.
BTW calling everything you disagree with racism doesn’t work anymore, nobody cares if you think he campaigned on racism (he didn’t).
If anything, people pushing this equity stuff are the real racists.
Edit after reading about Trump firing the people administering our nuclear weapons: God damn Donald Trump, and God damn the people who are so foolish to believe the the disinformation networks that tell them Donald Trump isn't working to destroy this country.
Men are created equal, but not identical. That's why you should aim for equal chance, but shouldn't try to force equal results. Affirmative actions and such are stupid and I'm glad Trump is getting rid of them.
I live in a country that has had a very successful programme of affirmative action, following roughly three generations of open, systemic racism (Maori school students where kept out of university and the professions as a matter of public policy)
Now we are starting to get Maori doctors and lawyers that is transforming our society - for the better IMO
That was because the law and medical schools went out of their way to recruit Maori students. To start with they were hard to find as nobody in their families (being Maori, and forbidden) had been to university
If you do not do anything about where people start then saying "aim for equal chance" can become a tool of oppression and keeping the opportunities for those who already have them.
Nuance is useful. I have heard many bizarre stories out of the USA about people blindly applying DEI with not much thought or planning. But there are many many places where carefully applied policies have made everybody's life better
This is always the Motte & Bailey of the left. "Equity" doesn't mean you recruit better. It means when your recruitment efforts fail to produce the outcomes you want, you lower the barriers on the basis of skin color. That's the racism that America is presently rejecting, and very forcefully.
NZ does not have a "successful programme of affirmative action".
Discrimination in favour of Maori students largely has benefited the children of Maori professionals and white people with a tiny percentage of Maori ancestry who take advantage of this discriminatory policy.
The Maori doctors and lawyers coming through these discriminatory programmes are not the people they were intended to target. Meanwhile, poor white children are essentially abandoned by the school system.
Maori were never actually excluded from university study, by the way. Maori were predominantly rural and secondary education was poor in rural areas but it has nothing to do with their ethnicity. They were never "forbidden". There have been Maori lawyers and doctors for as long as NZ has had universities.
For example, take Sir Apirana Ngata. He studied at a university in NZ in the 1890s, around the same time women got the vote. He was far from the first.
What you have alleged is a common narrative so I don't blame you for believing it but it is a lie.
> Maori were never actually excluded from university study, by the way
Māori schools (which the vast majority of Māori attended) were forbidden by the education department from teaching the subjects that lead to matriculation. So yes, they were forbidden from going to university.
> Sir Apirana Ngata. He studied at a university in NZ in the 1890s,
That was before the rules were changed. It was because of people like Ngata and Buck that the system was changed. The racists that ran the government were horrified that the natives were doing better than the colonialists. They "fixed" it.
> Discrimination in favour of Maori students largely has benefited the children of Maori professionals
It has helped establish traditions of tertiary study in Māori families, starting in the 1970s
There are plenty of working class Māori (I know a few) that used the system to get access. (The quota for Māori students in the University of Auckland's law school was not filled in the 1990s. Many more applied for it, but if their marks were sufficient to get in without using the quota they were not counted. If it were not for the quota many would not have even applied)
Talking of lies: "white people with a tiny percentage of Maori ancestry who take advantage of this" that is a lie.
The quotas are not based on ethnicity solely. To qualify you had to whakapapa (whāngi children probably qualified even if they did not whakapapa, I do not know), but you also had to be culturally Māori.
Lies and bigotry are not extinct in Aotearoa, but they are in retreat. The baby boomers are very disorientated, but the millennials are loving it.
I love the retelling of "I don't really care, Margaret." here.
But politics aside, this also points to something I've said numerous times here before: In order to write the rulebook you need to be a creator.
Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules. As far as "AI" is concerned, the creators are squarely the United States and presumably China. The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around.
If you want to be the rulemaker, be a creator; not a litigator.
> The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around
Exactly what I'd expect someone from a country where the economy is favoured over the society to say - particularly in the context of consumer protection.
You want access to a trade union of consumers? You play by the rules of that Union.
American exceptionalism doesn't negate that. A large technical moat does. But DeepSeek has jumped in and revealed how shallow that moat really is for AI at this neonatal stage.
Except EU is hell bent on going the way of Peron's Argentina or Mugabe's Zimbabwe. The EU relative share of world economy has been going down with no signs of the trends reversal. And instead of innovating our ways of stagnation we have - permanently attached bottle caps and cookie confirmation windows.
Nope mate. Looking at my purchasing power compared to the USA guys I knew now and in 2017. Not in my favor. EU economy is grossly mismanaged. Our standards of living have been flat for the last 18 years since the financial crisis.
In 2008 EU had more people, more money and bigger economy than US, with proper policies we could be in a place where we could bitch slap both Trump and Putin. And not left to wonder whose dick we have to suck deeper to get some gas.
Peter Zeihan would say, that’s the problem Europe has, in addition to demographic collapse. They’re not energy indepedent and hitched their star to Russia (especially Germany), on the belief that economic interdependence would keep things somewhat peaceful. How wrong they were
I'm Japanese-American, so I'm not exactly happy about Japan's state of irrelevance (yet again). Their one saving grace as a special(er) ally and friend is they can still enjoy some of the nectar with us if they get in lockstep like the UK does (family blood!) when push comes to shove.
> You don't make rules by writing several hundred pages of legalese as a litigator, you make rules by creating products and defining the market.
That is completely wrong, at least if rules = the law. You might create fancy products all you like, if they do not adhere to the law in any given market, they cannot be sold there.
> Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules
Create things? Or destroy them? Seems in reality, the most powerful nations are the ones who have acquired the greatest potential to destroy things. Creation is worthless if the dude next door is prepared to burn your house down because you look different to him.
>what is the actual cost incurred by the users here?
Time.
Every bit of JavaScript is more time to download, execute, and then render the page. Time is a valuable resource, users appreciate not being told to waste it.
>I think it's better to distribute the workload across clients.
The bulk of such loads should and ideally must be on servers, not clients. Use PHP, not JavaScript.
Also worth noting, the biggest motivator for JavaShit by far is the website owner(s) cutting costs. More load on the clients is more idling of the servers, the consequences of this will be homework left for the readers.
I disagree. The gov.uk website completely eschews JavaScript at some usability cost, in particular form validation is delayed until way later than it would be if they added just a little JavaScript. It can be quite annoying.
Perhaps, but, taking the example provided, Gov.uk deals with population scale products funded by taxpayers and which may be exclusively digital. Accessibility as an ideology makes sense in this context, and, I would argue, is morally correct.
I agree and with small single page sites doable but when I need to put a navigation (plus language versions etc) of the site into a mobile layout I have to do the js toggle, or do I?
One (unusual) approach I like because of the simplicity is to put all your navigation links in your footer, and the hamburger/menu button in the header is just an anchor link that scrolls down to your footer.
Unfortunately, accessible HTML solutions for well established UI patterns like menus and tooltips are still far too difficult to get right (anything that requires JavaScript usually).
Nice, and I agree - maybe… the desktop version gets a nav and on the phone it’s all one elder scroll. With section links if it gets too long. … but still need the entry point for lang versions
yep that works thank you - so to get the fullscreen overlay (since we only want it on the phones) a media query - maybe it should be the one gridcell navpage. But maybe the links should be listed for the robots ... if mobile is default/first there would be only one link - yeah maybe this is good.
That's because your source video is crap.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but all forms of digital media playback are streaming. Yes, even that MP4 stored locally on your SSD. There is literally no difference between "playing" that MP4 and "streaming" a Youtube or Netflix video.
Yes, even playing an 8K Blu-Ray video is still streaming.