"...our very expensive grinder." To save you the effort: that's about $4300 of coffee grinder, in that video. (Weber EG-1, Black. White is $400 "cheaper.")
It's not ever illegal, as long as it's your physical copy. Is it unethical? Well if you're censoring your copy, clearly not: you still saw the ads.
But are you asking in good faith? Or are you asking because you want to get to a point where you use a service that costs money to maintain and yet you don't spend money or view ads but you still feel ethical?
A lot of ad people would say that's unethical. Of course, a lot also say it's unethical to go to the bathroom during TV ads instead of sitting there and watching them like a good little consumer.
We need more languages, not fewer. We need all the experimental languages, the attempts at solving issues at the language level, to get to the next Good Language. We've got plenty of Good Languages right now, but we don't get others without a LOT of little languages getting made and inspiring the next ones.
Why is "of a radical nature" the important part here, and who gets to define it? Is fuel injection radical? Seatbelts? Crumple zones? GPS? In 1909 a car had 35HP and could peak at 53MPH, and was an ultimate death trap in an accident. Hundreds of improvements, some more radical than others, led to the cars of today being better in virtually every way, including subtle ways nobody knew mattered at the time (like not flinging people out the windshield in an accident).
That phrase is important because otherwise it wouldn't be there: it is load-bearing in that quotation.
All of the things you mentioned seem like the kind of incremental improvements you get over an additional hundred years of iteration and improvement... but I think it is non-sensical to try to sell that refinement as as impressive as the burst of improvement and innovation you saw as cars were first being defined.
In practice, I think a lot of people want every individual thing we do to follow some kind of exponential or even linear growth curve, but it seems much more likely that everything follows a sigmoid curve: an S-shapes trajectory wherein after a period of slow improvements the actual meat of a particular innovation are really experienced during a much faster and almost explosive growth followed by a return to slow incremental improvements to wring out the last benefits (but never just becomes fully flat).
The reason why, on a whole, we see such great improvements in our lives is then because of the combination of numerous S curves from new paradigms that overtake the old and provide an illusion of smooth and continual progress.
Like, I do think the premise of "tech progress" slowing down is strange: in the past few years alone we've seen disruptive "radical" paradigm shifts occurring that have altered how people live their lives to a pretty radical extent--though if you wanted to discount anything that was catalyzed by political and medical crises I might be forced to cede my stance? like, looking back in 40 years, this might all look incremental as I guess a lot of it is still speculative--but banal things like word processors or even laptops, we're clearly pretty far past the growth phase of the S-curve, and so all the things we already have aren't really improving much anymore and likely never will.
I'd be happy to see 24fps die. You said HFR shots "just look like real life" and to me that's precisely what any form of video SHOULD start with. You want to make an artistic choice, fine, but can we start with as crisp, clean, color rich, and highest frame rate possible please, and change those if the director or cinematographer think it'd be best to do so?
Yeah: I'm one of those folks with Motion Smoothing On on my expensive TV. 24fps is a remnant. A slideshow. You're conditioned to like it from having seen it for years, but it's not in any way special. Let. It. Die.
When they say a lot of them, they mean, a LOT: "Realistically, you would need hundreds of plants in any one room in your home to compensate the CO2 emissions from just one person."
In the USA fish for sushi is suggested by the FDA (and required by local law in some places: New York city comes to mind) to be frozen to -31F for 15 hours (or -4F for seven days), specifically to kill parasites. Given that virtually all salmon in the US has been frozen, I wouldn't worry about parasites in salmon sushi here.
