Jump to content
Floatplane payments are migrating! Read more... ×
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About LAwLz

Contact Methods

  • Discord

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Anime/manga, networks, some gaming, tabletop RPGs and posting on forums.
  • Occupation
    Consultant (networking)


  • CPU
    AMD Ryzen 1700X
  • Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-AX370-GAMING 5
  • RAM
    32GB @ 2666MHz CL16 (Corsair)
  • GPU
    MSI 1060 6GB Gaming
  • Case
    Cooler Master HAF 922
  • Storage
    512GB Samsung 960 Pro - 500GB Samsung 850 EVO - 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 - 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F4
  • PSU
    Corsair RM750X
  • Display(s)
    Dell U2312HM - Dell U2211H - a crappy TN monitor (Philips 221EL)
  • Cooling
    Noctua D15
  • Keyboard
    Corsair K95 (Brown switches)
  • Mouse
    Logitech G502
  • Sound
    AKG K702 - FiiO E9
  • Operating System
    Windows 10
  • PCPartPicker URL

Recent Profile Visitors

14,732 profile views
  1. Well, that's where you and I differ, and why I think "think of the children" is generally a shitty argument. Yes, I do think we should weight pros and cons of something against each other. "Think of the children" is often used to justify a "at any cost necessary" mentality where nothing except "saving children" matters. You need to weight the benefits and drawbacks of changes even when they involve "protecting children". I gave you 4 reasons why these discussions are different (a court protecting Facebook, and the porn filter debate) and you disregard everything in that because essentially "both involve children so therefore they need to be protected at any cost". Just because we're talking about children doesn't mean we should throw rationality and logic out the window.
  2. You're still ignoring all the other arguments I made as to why I do not think it is a comparable situation. 1) The proposed changes to the porn filter would have negative impacts on adults who are not breaking the law. Any law which has negative impacts on innocent people, in order to help others need to pass a much higher degree of scrutiny before being implemented. You need to weight benefit vs drawback. In this Facebook case the benefit is that the public gets informed about what Facebook are doing, and the drawback is that the criminal company Facebook, who has been found guilty, might take a hit to their public image if people knew what they were doing. A ruling on an individual case which has a negative impact on a criminal is usually fine in my eyes. But a new regulation for an entire industry which has negative effects on law abiding people like for example myself is not. The changes you propose has a negative or neutral impact on 99% of people and helps 1%. The thing I suggest has a negative impact on 1% of people and has a neutral or positive effect for 99% of people. 2) The websites you say should be forced to implement a porn filter have not been found guilty of breaking the law in a court (unlike Facebook). Innocent until proven guilty. 3) There is a big difference between being passive and letting something happen, and actively having strategies and plans for something. Until documents are discovered which proves that let's say PornHub has internal documents on how to encourage minors to use the website, and refuse them help (which is what Facebook has been found having) then laws should not be passed to punish them for it. If you want more alcohol analogies, car manufacturers not preventing someone from driving drunk, is very different from if VW was found to have documents detailing how they should encourage people to drive while drunk, because then they smash their cars and need to buy a new one. 4) We're still talking about a blanket change on an entire industry vs the punishment of one website. I think regulations for an entire industry needs far more scrutiny before being passed as a law and implemented, compared to one company doing something wrong and being punished for it. Even if we did discover that VW had plans for encouraging drunk driving, I think only VW should be punished for it, not Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes too because "they might be doing bad things too but we have no evidence".
  3. That still has very negative impact on the law abiding adults who use it responsibly by putting them at a security risk (putting in highly sensitive and private information into websites). I am for "thinking of the children" when it does not have a negative impact on the law abiding adults. Requiring inputting CC information to view porn does, so therefore I am against it. If you can come up with a way which does not risk compromising the security or privacy of law abiding adults, which blocks children from watching porn then I will be for it. The changes suggested by various governments so far has however not met those criteria and therefore I have been against it. Also, I think you're ignoring the fact that Facebook has been found guilty of breaking the law, but the public are not informed in what ways. If PornHub was found guilty of having internal strategies for exploiting children visiting their site for their own profits, and the court went "well we have evidence for it, but I think it's best that the public don't see this" then I would be demanding to see it too, just like I am in this thread. On top of that, you're trying to rationalize a radical change on an entire industry because some sites are doing bad things. I am not trying to champion something like blanket ban on all social media websites here. I am asking for punishment for the site who has done something wrong, and let other websites who have not been found guilty of anything continue to operate like they do now. So no, that's why I don't think there is any hypocrisy in me wanting to know what the secret documents from Facebook contains, and me being against overly intrusive regulations on porn sites.
  4. "We need to do this to protect children, even though it affects adults too" = No room for "think of the children" arguments. "This company is doing harmful things towards children, that may be against the law which only applies to children, but we won't tell you what" = Yes, we should think of the children. Think of it like this. We shouldn't ban alcohol from being sold to adults because some is being resold to children. "Think of the children" is not a valid argument for a total ban because that would affect many law abiding citizens which does things responsibly (as in, not resell it, drink responsibly etc). We should punish a store that is deliberately selling alcohol to children. That store is breaking the law. Banning it will not have negative consequences for other law abiding citizens. That's my logic and rational at least, and you will find it very consistent with my other posts.
  5. https://www.androidauthority.com/faster-android-updates-942929/


    Android updates are now much quicker (at least on high end devices) than before. Project Treble seems to have cut the rollout time of updates by several months. 

    1. Cyberspirit


      Seems like mine got support for Treble so, will see if updates get any faster.

    2. Lukyp


      I noticed this on my OP6 since when I bought it this summer, I thought a similar approach was already present in the previous android versions as well

  6. LAwLz

    Machinima wipes all videos without notifying it's creators.

    Rest in piece. Good thing Arby n the chief is hosted elsewhere. Pretty sure that used to be on machinima, and that was essentially the only thing I watched on there.
  7. But if you're going to carry around a mouse and keyboard with your tablet my question becomes, why not get a laptop instead?
  8. LAwLz

    EU copyright bill negotiations cancelled

    For those interested, I made this searchable and easy to filter document which shows exactly which people, from which parties and countries, and how they voted during the proposal back in September. The source of the information is here, but you need an account and it's not as easy to filter in. Although the website does have more information on it. https://drive.google.com/open?id=14XHlFXZlP4PaO-JLfsqRe_91RoXdMeqhAeb3b3mcfsc Source: https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-commission-proposal-ordinar.html
  9. I think the most horrid thing about this story is this part from another news outlet: So some of the documents regarding Facebook's handling of children on their platform would cause harm to Facebook if the public new about it. Why is that being kept from people? What is in the documents that remain hidden to protect Facebook? Anyway, what I think a lot of people are missing is that Facebook has a legal obligation to protect minors. It is not legal to do whatever you want and then just blame it on the users. Imagine if someone used that argument for a child buying alcohol, or drugs, or weapons, or whatever. "Well the parents shouldn't have given the kid money if they didn't want them buying beer lol!"
  10. Why do you feel like you constantly have to "educate" and inform users about Microsoft's latest failing project every chance you get? It feels like you just sit at your computer, trying to find posts where you can shoehorn in news about Microsoft products. Someone mentioned Windows on ARM? Better tell them how developers are actually jumping on board and examples of how they are totally working on it! You did the exact same thing for Windows 10 Mobile. Constantly mentioning which developers are doing what with the platform. It feels like you're ramming it down everyone's throats because you desperately wants Microsoft to succeed with pushing their products. It's implied in your posts since you always talk about all the benefits of whatever Microsoft product the thread is about, or how any negative thing will soon not be a problem, or how bad alternatives are, etc. In this particular post the person you quoted said that Windows on ARM could be a success, to which you replied "yes", and then you started talking about how big developers are jumping onboard the platform. You're missing the point. My point is that you gave 3 examples of programs that are being worked on for Windows on ARM. 3 programs are not enough. 100 programs are not enough. If you could give me a list of maybe 300 programs which were being worked on as first class citizens on Windows 10 on ARM, then they would be somewhat starting to scratch the surface of removing the "there are no apps for it" stigma. And I mean 300 of the most popular apps, not just 50 flashlight apps. According to the developer guides I read, you need to choose the UWP development workload in Visual Studio in order to develop or port your code to ARM. To me, that sounds like you're limited to the UWP framework but maybe I am misunderstood things. Can I for example take a Qt program using Vulcan components, recompile it to ARM, and just have it work without it being a UWP package?
  11. Ohh GoodBytes... Do you never learn? You can't keep going "Look! this program is on the platform now so it's going to be great!". You did the exact same thing with Windows on smartphones. Whenever one program announced that it would be coming to the platform you used that as an example of how developers were totally going to start embracing the platform and it would become amazing... Yet it never trickled out into being more than just a handful of developers. The top 100 apps in the Google Play Store in Sweden all have over 100,000 downloads. A large portion of them are apps from Swedish companies, for Swedish people. Things like "BankID", "CSN", "Viaplay", "svt", "SJ", etc, which does not work in any other country. In order to gain traction in one country you probably need to have all 100 top apps from that region in your market place, and they need to be as frequently updated as on the other platforms. I would not be surprised if that amounts to thousands of different apps. You mentioned 1 video player, one alpha browser and Chrome which Google is "showing interest in making". That's not even close to begin enough. Porting what exactly? x86 to ARM compatible UWP? Developers have been able to do that for years and barely anyone bothers because it's terrible. UWP has severe limitations in what it can do and function, and as a result many programs can't be ported.
  12. I don't see making x86 programs run on tablets or phones saving Microsoft for the simple reason that using most x86 programs on a touch screen is very clunky. Programs are designed with a mouse, and thus high precision, in mind. An example is list menus. x86 is full of them, and they work really well when you use a mouse, but are a pain to use with a touch screen. I think Microsoft are doing the right thing and giving up on their mobile platform. It has just sucked out a huge amount of cash from them for very little in return. It's better to focus on the other areas where they are successful.
  13. If someone said that the Macbook was good because of its high end m3 or i3 processor, would you call it nitpicking to point out that those are low end parts? Same thing here. Saying that Windows Phone had high end hardware, when it was still stuck on single core processors and low end graphics while the competitors had dual and even quad core processors, is not "nitpicking". And if you think more details makes something less interesting, then you will never get that far in the world of technology. Anyway, I think the video was fundamentally flawed and did not provide an explanation even close to the truth. The only part it got right was that Microsoft did not take mobile seriously and they were overly confident.
  14. iOS and Android icons did provide the user with information. For example if you got a mail there would be a little counter showing how many unread mails you had. For bigger information dumps such as weather information, Android had widgets which dynamically changed. No they weren't. Microsoft had strict hardware requirements because Windows Phone did not support more than a handful of SoCs, screens or other hardware. The hardware Windows Phone did support was actually not that impressive at the time of release, and it very quickly got outdated. Because of the poor hardware support and slow updates from Microsoft to support new stuff, Windows Phone devices were almost always one generation behind Android and iOS in terms of hardware. Just look at the hardware shown in the video for the devices that came out. 1GHz single core Scorpion CPU. Around 512MB of RAM 8 or 16GB of storage 5 MP camera 1500 mAh battery or less And what was announced just ~3 months after those phones came out? The Galaxy S2, which had a dual core processor with a better architecture (Cortex A9). Something like 3-4 times as powerful GPU. Way lighter and slimmer. The Windows Phones felt like a brick in comparison. 1GB of RAM. A much larger screen. Much larger battery. 16 or 32GB of internal storage. Not to mention all the small stuff like dual microphones with active noise cancellation. A front facing camera (something that Windows Phone did not even support). Support for recording 1080p. USB host support and video out from the USB port. Dual-band WiFi. Higher screen to body ratio. Support for microSD card (the early Windows phones did not have this). The list goes on and on and on. Anyone who says Windows Phone were very powerful for their time is completely wrong. They could claim to be high end for about 3 months and then they were very outdated in pretty much every regard, and that would be the trend until sometime around Windows 10. Just look at the first Nokia phone, the Lumia 800. It was released over half a year after the Galaxy S2. It was still stuck on pretty much the same hardware as the Windows phones released 1 year earlier though. Still the same processor, except now clocked at 1.4GHz instead of 1GHz (still single core though). Same resolution and screen size. Still 512MB of RAM Still no 1080p recording. Still no dual-band wifi. Still no microSD. Still no front facing camera. Etc etc etc... And then, half a year later, Samsung released the Galaxy S 3 with a quad core CPU, a large 720p display and a ton of other goodies. On top of that Microsoft were extremely slow with software updates, and the software was pretty awful too. Gonna throw in some quotes from myself where I explain this more: 1) Much faster updates. When Windows Phone 7 launched they were promising "machine gun like updates" or something along those lines. What we got were very long periods between updates, which made the gap between WP and iOS/Android just grow over time. 2) Less restrictions on hardware from the get-go. In the early days of WP, Microsoft had incredibly strict guidelines for what hardware handsets should have had. It only supported a handful of chipsets and screen resolutions, and things like buttons and button placements were also dictated by Microsoft. In the end all phones felt more or less the same which did not give handset makers much incentive to develop new hardware.  3) Don't dump support over and over again. Microsoft have at several points in Windows on mobile's life cycle decided to axe support for a large portion of devices (No WP7 device got updated to WP8). That did not help confidence.  4) Focus on third party developers a lot earlier. It took quite some time before Microsoft started incentivizing developers to develop on WP. They were too confident that they could just release an OS and have developers instantly jump on board and support them just because third party developers support Windows.  5) Microsoft designed Windows Phone to be annoying to use. While that sounds strange Windows Phone was not designed to be a "first class citizen" in the Microsoft ecosystem. Microsoft viewed phones as an accessory to the PC, and wanted people to first and foremost use their PC to do things. Or to quote Brian Klug (I still miss you):
  15. As part of a class action lawsuit against Facebook, the company has been forced to reveal internal documents to the court regarding how their strategy for profiting off children are laid out. Some of these documents will become public as part of the ruling, but this part of the article is what really scares me:


    The judge agreed with Facebook’s request to keep some of the records sealed, saying certain records contained information that would cause the social media giant harm, outweighing the public benefit.


    Wow... The only way I can interpret this is that Facebook has secret documents regarding how they handle children so bad that the court feels like it would seriously harm Facebook if the public knew about it.

    Why is the court shielding Facebook here, when it involves children?

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. King Poet

      King Poet

      Perhaps they meant as far as public opinion based on misinterpreting the information, but yeah... I doubt that that's it lol.

    3. Lukyp


      Facebook is really crap, really, everything about it 

      It's sad they can do what they want just because they're big 

    4. Techstorm970


      @Lukyp Ruining someone's life (or a company) when you don't need to is very slimy and, in fact, illegal.  The judge said a lot just by saying, "You don't want to know what their policy is because it's THAT awful."