Kisai

Probably so they don't have to change the board layout. Think about it. What they have right now:

If they change the CPU type, then they pretty much need to design a new PCB for it. If it has the same MB pinout then it can just be swapped straight over, and if the new GPU is just a die shrink of RDNA3/4 that fits in the same space of the RDNA2, then they don't need to even retool their process.
 
That said, I'm not sure why anyone would buy a "Pro" console. Does the existing console not play the games you want already? Did we learn nothing from Wii U? People don't buy incremental upgrades unless that is the only option. People who want this who already have a PS5 are going to be like "well I dunno, all my saves are married to that existing console."
 
 

It doesn't impress me. It creates maybe passable flavor-text/music you might hear in a shopping district inside a video game, but it doesn't sound real. It sounds like an AM Radio.
 
This is the problem with most "music" and "voice" AI, is that taken separately (See RVC) you can make a perfect clone of another song because all the AI does is "autotune" the voice B from the original voice A, but you use the same backing audio. All you've done is made a cover using the source voice, which to me isn't a "cover", it's akin to "nightcore"'ing a song where you just speed it up 50% and have done nothing else to it.
 
I'm not sure what the underlying process is for Udio because I've honestly just picked half a dozen different songs to check the genre adhere'dness but it seems like everything was washed with a noise filter that ranges from "radio" to "phonograph". I'd say most of these don't sound like what they claim to, and the ones that do, sound like they're inside a bathroom or hallway or down the street, or something.
 
They all lack "professional sound" mixing feel to it. If this was 1960, you could probably get away with it on LP or tape. 
 
Thinking about it for a minute, I believe I know what they did. They likely used commercial music as training data from different periods, because that would explain the incoherent levels of noise. The AI doesn't understand the "hiss" of a LP isn't part of the music.
 

Basically the PS4 Pro came out with the PS4 Slim, and then they discontinued the Pro and kept the slim for another 3 years. 
 
Personally, any time I've even bought a console, I waited for the "Slim" or whatever refined model comes out, because problems with the existing models. Like the Xbox 360 was notoriously bad, so I waited for a redesign , the S model. Which was fine, but then the hard drive died and I was like "well f microsoft then."
 
So I bought the Switch after the "OLED" model came out, but didn't buy the OLED model.
 

It doesn't impress me. It creates maybe passable flavor-text/music you might hear in a shopping district inside a video game, but it doesn't sound real. It sounds like an AM Radio.
 
This is the problem with most "music" and "voice" AI, is that taken separately (See RVC) you can make a perfect clone of another song because all the AI does is "autotune" the voice B from the original voice A, but you use the same backing audio. All you've done is made a cover using the source voice, which to me isn't a "cover", it's akin to "nightcore"'ing a song where you just speed it up 50% and have done nothing else to it.
 
I'm not sure what the underlying process is for Udio because I've honestly just picked half a dozen different songs to check the genre adhere'dness but it seems like everything was washed with a noise filter that ranges from "radio" to "phonograph". I'd say most of these don't sound like what they claim to, and the ones that do, sound like they're inside a bathroom or hallway or down the street, or something.
 
They all lack "professional sound" mixing feel to it. If this was 1960, you could probably get away with it on LP or tape. 
 
Thinking about it for a minute, I believe I know what they did. They likely used commercial music as training data from different periods, because that would explain the incoherent levels of noise. The AI doesn't understand the "hiss" of a LP isn't part of the music.
 

pfft. no.
 
It's always about preventing blackmarket chop-shops from proliferating.
The only reason it was possible to do this, was because some of the parts were "Chopped" must have been from stolen devices. Not just broken ones. If they were all broken devices, then he would have been unable to obtain the main SoC PCB, because they would have been "locked" from the previous user of the device, as they would have serial numbers that are tied to someone's iCloud account. Seriously if you think about it for 10 seconds, every part you find online on eBay that isn't a battery is from a stolen or broken device, but in order for someone to have hundreds of parts from a current model device, they have to be stolen. Nobody is buying the eWaste from bestbuy just to pick out the 5 year old iphones and send the rest to a shredder.
 
That's why companies should be required to buy back their old devices if they want to keep chop shops from operating. The company buys back the devices and then sends them to companies who remove the usable parts and are authorized to sell the parts, and the company will mark those devices in their inventory as "not stolen"
 
 

pfft. no.
 
It's always about preventing blackmarket chop-shops from proliferating.
The only reason it was possible to do this, was because some of the parts were "Chopped" must have been from stolen devices. Not just broken ones. If they were all broken devices, then he would have been unable to obtain the main SoC PCB, because they would have been "locked" from the previous user of the device, as they would have serial numbers that are tied to someone's iCloud account. Seriously if you think about it for 10 seconds, every part you find online on eBay that isn't a battery is from a stolen or broken device, but in order for someone to have hundreds of parts from a current model device, they have to be stolen. Nobody is buying the eWaste from bestbuy just to pick out the 5 year old iphones and send the rest to a shredder.
 
That's why companies should be required to buy back their old devices if they want to keep chop shops from operating. The company buys back the devices and then sends them to companies who remove the usable parts and are authorized to sell the parts, and the company will mark those devices in their inventory as "not stolen"
 
 

Summary
 A US state government has proposed a law requiring retroactively that generative AI models have their training data sources disclosed. 
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 This is nothing but good IMO. If we start requiring AI models to disclose what data they have ingested, we will have better quality models that can be checked against biases, and highlight which models are likely to result in output being lawsuit bait from purposely scraping/ripping commercial websites of non-free UGC material and other UGC sources. 
 
What I predict, is that if it does become law, commercial use of AI (eg ChatGPT) might slow down because the need to disclose will reveal which models have ingested copyrighted material should the output of an AI be claimed to be plagiarized of a copyrighted work. Can't use the defense of "well ChatGPT created it", when ChatGPT might have actually used the copyrighted work in it's training. Visual and Musical Artists will have a field day should it be revealed that their works were used to train a model and are being commercially used to replicate their styles.
 
What I don't see happening is any actual abandoning or shutdown of commercial generative AI use. They'll just change their TOS to put the liability on the end user for checking.
 
*UGC = User Generated Content, where the website is merely the publisher, not the owner. Think DeviantArt and Reddit.
 
Sources
 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material/ 
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-introduces-groundbreaking-bill-to-create-ai-transparency-between-creators-and-companies
https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_generative_ai_copyright_disclosure_act.pdf

Summary
 A US state government has proposed a law requiring retroactively that generative AI models have their training data sources disclosed. 
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 This is nothing but good IMO. If we start requiring AI models to disclose what data they have ingested, we will have better quality models that can be checked against biases, and highlight which models are likely to result in output being lawsuit bait from purposely scraping/ripping commercial websites of non-free UGC material and other UGC sources. 
 
What I predict, is that if it does become law, commercial use of AI (eg ChatGPT) might slow down because the need to disclose will reveal which models have ingested copyrighted material should the output of an AI be claimed to be plagiarized of a copyrighted work. Can't use the defense of "well ChatGPT created it", when ChatGPT might have actually used the copyrighted work in it's training. Visual and Musical Artists will have a field day should it be revealed that their works were used to train a model and are being commercially used to replicate their styles.
 
What I don't see happening is any actual abandoning or shutdown of commercial generative AI use. They'll just change their TOS to put the liability on the end user for checking.
 
*UGC = User Generated Content, where the website is merely the publisher, not the owner. Think DeviantArt and Reddit.
 
Sources
 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material/ 
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-introduces-groundbreaking-bill-to-create-ai-transparency-between-creators-and-companies
https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_generative_ai_copyright_disclosure_act.pdf

Summary
 A US state government has proposed a law requiring retroactively that generative AI models have their training data sources disclosed. 
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 This is nothing but good IMO. If we start requiring AI models to disclose what data they have ingested, we will have better quality models that can be checked against biases, and highlight which models are likely to result in output being lawsuit bait from purposely scraping/ripping commercial websites of non-free UGC material and other UGC sources. 
 
What I predict, is that if it does become law, commercial use of AI (eg ChatGPT) might slow down because the need to disclose will reveal which models have ingested copyrighted material should the output of an AI be claimed to be plagiarized of a copyrighted work. Can't use the defense of "well ChatGPT created it", when ChatGPT might have actually used the copyrighted work in it's training. Visual and Musical Artists will have a field day should it be revealed that their works were used to train a model and are being commercially used to replicate their styles.
 
What I don't see happening is any actual abandoning or shutdown of commercial generative AI use. They'll just change their TOS to put the liability on the end user for checking.
 
*UGC = User Generated Content, where the website is merely the publisher, not the owner. Think DeviantArt and Reddit.
 
Sources
 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material/ 
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-introduces-groundbreaking-bill-to-create-ai-transparency-between-creators-and-companies
https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_generative_ai_copyright_disclosure_act.pdf

Summary
 A US state government has proposed a law requiring retroactively that generative AI models have their training data sources disclosed. 
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 This is nothing but good IMO. If we start requiring AI models to disclose what data they have ingested, we will have better quality models that can be checked against biases, and highlight which models are likely to result in output being lawsuit bait from purposely scraping/ripping commercial websites of non-free UGC material and other UGC sources. 
 
What I predict, is that if it does become law, commercial use of AI (eg ChatGPT) might slow down because the need to disclose will reveal which models have ingested copyrighted material should the output of an AI be claimed to be plagiarized of a copyrighted work. Can't use the defense of "well ChatGPT created it", when ChatGPT might have actually used the copyrighted work in it's training. Visual and Musical Artists will have a field day should it be revealed that their works were used to train a model and are being commercially used to replicate their styles.
 
What I don't see happening is any actual abandoning or shutdown of commercial generative AI use. They'll just change their TOS to put the liability on the end user for checking.
 
*UGC = User Generated Content, where the website is merely the publisher, not the owner. Think DeviantArt and Reddit.
 
Sources
 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material/ 
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-introduces-groundbreaking-bill-to-create-ai-transparency-between-creators-and-companies
https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_generative_ai_copyright_disclosure_act.pdf

Doubtful.
 
The more likely scenario is that it would allow Nintendo/Sony/SquareEnix/etc to release "Nintendo switch online" types of services.
 
Like you have to understand that the most emulators are under licenses that would not allow them to be distributed on iOS because there's not a way to include the source code. Unless you compiled it yourself there was no way to legitimately put it on your device anyway. Not unless it was was a BSD/MIT license at least.
 
Certain games that you can buy on Steam right now, are emulators, or something close to it. For example:
This doesn't work. Like at all. Yet if you unpack the unity files, guess what's inside? Plain working ROMs that do work in any available SNES and Sega Mega Drive emulator. You just need to know which goes with what.
 
Another example, 
Sega delisted it, but it still exists if you bought it:
"SEGA Mega Drive and Genesis Classics"
Exactly the same as the Disney package above, at it is is an emulator, you can pull the games from it.
 
You can do this for dozens of other games, if you bought it on any original media, a lot of Square Enix games you buy on steam now, or previously on mobile, or on PSX, that were originally SNES, GB or GBA games, used the original game ROM, even though the "game" is little more than a script interpreter that understands the original binary. Like you would with ScummVM.
 
Does ScummVM count as an emulator? Does MAME count as an emulator. After all both of these are playing the original games without the original hardware.  But their source code license prohibits them being used on iOS, Playstation, Switch, Xbox, because they can't include the source code for the SDK for the game consoles, nor include the source code of the game.
 
Apple primarily didn't want emulators on their platform because of the possibility of using them to jailbreak the device and play pirated media. If a program has a fixed set of games that are licensed to be played (a la switch online) or is in fact a more generic emulator that works with a USB attachment to an actual "cart reader" that's permissible. Technically.
 
From a legal perspective, it would be smart for Nintendo to actually find a way to get Switch Online on the iPhone/iPad, because they could then say any other emulators of NES/SNES/GB are unauthorized and likely pirate software. But we all know they're not going to do this. I would expect Square Enix and SEGA to just release their games this way and forgo having to deal with both Nintendo and Apple's middle-grounds, and just deliver their old games directly to players.
 
One way or another.
 

Doubtful.
 
The more likely scenario is that it would allow Nintendo/Sony/SquareEnix/etc to release "Nintendo switch online" types of services.
 
Like you have to understand that the most emulators are under licenses that would not allow them to be distributed on iOS because there's not a way to include the source code. Unless you compiled it yourself there was no way to legitimately put it on your device anyway. Not unless it was was a BSD/MIT license at least.
 
Certain games that you can buy on Steam right now, are emulators, or something close to it. For example:
This doesn't work. Like at all. Yet if you unpack the unity files, guess what's inside? Plain working ROMs that do work in any available SNES and Sega Mega Drive emulator. You just need to know which goes with what.
 
Another example, 
Sega delisted it, but it still exists if you bought it:
"SEGA Mega Drive and Genesis Classics"
Exactly the same as the Disney package above, at it is is an emulator, you can pull the games from it.
 
You can do this for dozens of other games, if you bought it on any original media, a lot of Square Enix games you buy on steam now, or previously on mobile, or on PSX, that were originally SNES, GB or GBA games, used the original game ROM, even though the "game" is little more than a script interpreter that understands the original binary. Like you would with ScummVM.
 
Does ScummVM count as an emulator? Does MAME count as an emulator. After all both of these are playing the original games without the original hardware.  But their source code license prohibits them being used on iOS, Playstation, Switch, Xbox, because they can't include the source code for the SDK for the game consoles, nor include the source code of the game.
 
Apple primarily didn't want emulators on their platform because of the possibility of using them to jailbreak the device and play pirated media. If a program has a fixed set of games that are licensed to be played (a la switch online) or is in fact a more generic emulator that works with a USB attachment to an actual "cart reader" that's permissible. Technically.
 
From a legal perspective, it would be smart for Nintendo to actually find a way to get Switch Online on the iPhone/iPad, because they could then say any other emulators of NES/SNES/GB are unauthorized and likely pirate software. But we all know they're not going to do this. I would expect Square Enix and SEGA to just release their games this way and forgo having to deal with both Nintendo and Apple's middle-grounds, and just deliver their old games directly to players.
 
One way or another.
 

I'd probably not bother with the CPU. You can pull the GPU if you still have the packing box for it, otherwise it'll probably just get damaged.
 
Usually the primary rule for air travel is "buy an extra seat for extremely valuable equipment, and take everything in carryon" of which a seat might cost as much as the computer in some cases. Only check luggage that you can afford to replace.
 
Basically as others said, you want to take your data, on the SSD, and if you just swap a new computers SSD with the SSD you have, if it has the same CPU you can just pick up where you left off with most software not needing to be reauthorized.
 
If you're willing to spend the money to ship it, I'd evaluate how much you're paying to ship it versus how much it costs to buy it new, because generally people who travel frequently have to stick to mid-tier thicker laptops due to how much it costs, but also because ultrabook designs are easily damaged from handling at airports.
 
Like, electronics don't travel well at the best of times, even when things are sent commercially on pallets, they are often overpackaged and wrapped so they don't move and can withstand another pallet being placed on top. A single computer is likely to be damaged, even if well packaged simply from how it will be handled by the logistics company, FEDEX/UPS/DHL/etc literately drop stuff from planes which is typically an 8 ft drop.
 
I've seen computers packaged in wood crates, end up with inch-deep bends in the chassis from these drops. Hence, reiterate, avoid shipping the whole desktop.
 

Windows has had a variable EOL
 
If you include all versions of windows going back to 1.01, all versions of windows between 1.01 Thru to Windows 95 EOL'd in 2001
98/98SE and ME EOL 2006 ( 8, 7 and 6 years)
Windows NT 3.51 1995 to 2001 (6 years)
Windows NT 4.0 1996 to 2004 ( 8 years)
Windows 2000 2000 to 2010 ( 10 years)
Windows XP 2001 to 2014 ( 13 years)
Windows Vista 2007 to 2017 ( 10 years)
Windows 7 2009 to 2020 (11 years)
Windows 8 2012 to 2016 ( 4 years)
Windows 8.1 2013 to 2023 (10 years)
Windows 10 2015 to 2025 (10 years)
Windows 11 2021 to undefined
 
Now if you want to nitpick Windows 8, 8.1, 10 and 11 are the same OS. Microsoft basically rolled out sub versions starting with 8 that were equal to the service packs of NT 4. So each of these individual versions have small EOL dates. So Windows 10 1507 still has LTSB to 2024, even though GAC is 2017. 21H2 was released in 2021, and ends 2023, but LTSB is to 2032
 
So yes "Windows 10" has lasted 10 years, but each of the builds were 2 years.
 
Compare this with , say FreeBSD. Which 4.x had 7 years, 5.x had 5 years and every major version has been 5 years, but the point versions are frequently only 1 year. Which absolutely sucks except for the fact you can upgrade directly from 4.x to 13.x on the same hardware (personal experience) without ever having to reinstall things. So that's like having 25 years of support. Though it's not really that, FreeBSD has been removing hardware support and thus 13.x and 14.x will not run on the same hardware that was out with 4.x. FreeBSD also has immense code rot. So the ports packages are completely nuked when the OS goes EOL, so you are totally screwed the minute the OS goes EOL on that old hardware.. No upgrade path. Throw your server away.
 
I sometimes thought the cobol Y2K stuff was a bit silly, but here we are with the OS vendors deciding to arbitrarily nuke support for hardware just so they can release frequently. Linux is no better. Every piece of old hardware needs a maintainer for it's drivers or it risks disappearing there too.
 
 

Windows has had a variable EOL
 
If you include all versions of windows going back to 1.01, all versions of windows between 1.01 Thru to Windows 95 EOL'd in 2001
98/98SE and ME EOL 2006 ( 8, 7 and 6 years)
Windows NT 3.51 1995 to 2001 (6 years)
Windows NT 4.0 1996 to 2004 ( 8 years)
Windows 2000 2000 to 2010 ( 10 years)
Windows XP 2001 to 2014 ( 13 years)
Windows Vista 2007 to 2017 ( 10 years)
Windows 7 2009 to 2020 (11 years)
Windows 8 2012 to 2016 ( 4 years)
Windows 8.1 2013 to 2023 (10 years)
Windows 10 2015 to 2025 (10 years)
Windows 11 2021 to undefined
 
Now if you want to nitpick Windows 8, 8.1, 10 and 11 are the same OS. Microsoft basically rolled out sub versions starting with 8 that were equal to the service packs of NT 4. So each of these individual versions have small EOL dates. So Windows 10 1507 still has LTSB to 2024, even though GAC is 2017. 21H2 was released in 2021, and ends 2023, but LTSB is to 2032
 
So yes "Windows 10" has lasted 10 years, but each of the builds were 2 years.
 
Compare this with , say FreeBSD. Which 4.x had 7 years, 5.x had 5 years and every major version has been 5 years, but the point versions are frequently only 1 year. Which absolutely sucks except for the fact you can upgrade directly from 4.x to 13.x on the same hardware (personal experience) without ever having to reinstall things. So that's like having 25 years of support. Though it's not really that, FreeBSD has been removing hardware support and thus 13.x and 14.x will not run on the same hardware that was out with 4.x. FreeBSD also has immense code rot. So the ports packages are completely nuked when the OS goes EOL, so you are totally screwed the minute the OS goes EOL on that old hardware.. No upgrade path. Throw your server away.
 
I sometimes thought the cobol Y2K stuff was a bit silly, but here we are with the OS vendors deciding to arbitrarily nuke support for hardware just so they can release frequently. Linux is no better. Every piece of old hardware needs a maintainer for it's drivers or it risks disappearing there too.
 
 

Cause browsers and AV products change it, but more to the point, other things have hijacked the "default browser" setting to intercept links you open from your email clients.
 
Like OTP logins.

Cause browsers and AV products change it, but more to the point, other things have hijacked the "default browser" setting to intercept links you open from your email clients.
 
Like OTP logins.

Honestly, I'm very much on a "who cares" line of thinking.
 
If nvidia wanted to circumvent this, it's very easy. Go chiplet. Unless they are restricted to selling only complete boards, not bare chips, all a company has to do is glue two chips together at the chiplet side. (Gross oversimplification.)
 
The reality is that the US goverment kinda just misunderstands the situation, and trying to hobble nvidia from selling advanced "AI" chips to China means they will just import gaming GPU's to build those super computer AI systems and waste significantly more power in doing so. Just because they don't have the GPU's in china doesn't mean they can't get access to compute power in the US or Europe.
 
As it is, I'm getting the distinct feeling that Nvidia's own statements about AGI in 5 years probably put them in hot water for this.
 
Again, as I've said many times. There will be no AGI in 5 years. We will hit a ceiling in die shinks very soon, and everything will come to a halt without parallelizing the chip designs themselves. I predict what we will see are "Chip sandwiches" where it goes pcb-die-ram-heat interposer-ram-die-pcb and GPU/CPU's have to build sealed heat exchangers because "4 slot GPU's" are quite frankly bonkers stupid. Go back to the blower design even if you have to cut the clock in half, or wait for desktops to push the kind of "4slot+4slot" split PCIe lanes with the CPU in the middle like Dell Precision 7960 workstations.
 
Cause we are caught in a very stupid situation at the moment where the combined GPU+CPU power can't exceed the wall power of 1800w (single circuit) , a space heater is 1500w, and a 1500w PSU really doesn't have 1500w of power.
 
Nvidia can't put those server chips in gaming cards because the power requirements exceed that which you could reasonably get in the US 120v 15A and I'm sure AU, UK and EU standards aren't that far away. Unless gaming and AI computers are going to be things you can only own if you have a 240v circuit in your house, something has to give, and I'm sure it's going to be the GPU.

Summary
 Bell (Canadian ISP, Television service provider, and content licensor to other Television services) is now going to delete your cloud PVR recordings after 60 days.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 Given that it's direct competitor in the market, Rogers, has a 1 year expiry, Telus has 90 days, why is there an expiry at all? So the ISP can free up disk space? So they can force their users to watch the VOD version of the same show they don't have all the episodes to? To force people to watch Netflix or CraveTV if they want to watch the entire series?
 
Like I've long since complained about Telus's complete incompetence about having any shows on their VOD service. You might click a TV show and you might have the most recent episode and one episode from 2 years ago, and nothing else. The ISP's VOD services are absolutely worthless because they want you to pay for CraveTV, because they directly profit from that.
 
Given that ISP's no longer even offer local PVR's and you can't buy PVR's that hook up to HDMI (legitimately) is this yet another attempt and destroying media?
 
Sources
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/pvr-pullback-bell-to-delete-viewers-saved-tv-shows-and-movies-after-60-days-1.6834904

There are plenty of imbeciles on the internet who go "it's just a joke bro" when they are caught, they tend to say things to rile up other imbeciles, damn the legal consequences. This brand of popularism is pushed by people who are only out there to sell you snake oil. Jones, Peterson, Trump, Carlson, Phelps, all of them. They know who their audience is.
 
Comparing them to some influencers on the internet who mainly regurgitate news headlines from other sources and occasionally stick a joke in there is pretty wild. LTT has screwdrivers and water bottles to sell, products they had engineered, not repackaged overpriced homeopathic remedies and ghost written books with their names on it.
 

There are plenty of imbeciles on the internet who go "it's just a joke bro" when they are caught, they tend to say things to rile up other imbeciles, damn the legal consequences. This brand of popularism is pushed by people who are only out there to sell you snake oil. Jones, Peterson, Trump, Carlson, Phelps, all of them. They know who their audience is.
 
Comparing them to some influencers on the internet who mainly regurgitate news headlines from other sources and occasionally stick a joke in there is pretty wild. LTT has screwdrivers and water bottles to sell, products they had engineered, not repackaged overpriced homeopathic remedies and ghost written books with their names on it.
 

Summary
 Bell (Canadian ISP, Television service provider, and content licensor to other Television services) is now going to delete your cloud PVR recordings after 60 days.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 Given that it's direct competitor in the market, Rogers, has a 1 year expiry, Telus has 90 days, why is there an expiry at all? So the ISP can free up disk space? So they can force their users to watch the VOD version of the same show they don't have all the episodes to? To force people to watch Netflix or CraveTV if they want to watch the entire series?
 
Like I've long since complained about Telus's complete incompetence about having any shows on their VOD service. You might click a TV show and you might have the most recent episode and one episode from 2 years ago, and nothing else. The ISP's VOD services are absolutely worthless because they want you to pay for CraveTV, because they directly profit from that.
 
Given that ISP's no longer even offer local PVR's and you can't buy PVR's that hook up to HDMI (legitimately) is this yet another attempt and destroying media?
 
Sources
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/pvr-pullback-bell-to-delete-viewers-saved-tv-shows-and-movies-after-60-days-1.6834904

There are plenty of imbeciles on the internet who go "it's just a joke bro" when they are caught, they tend to say things to rile up other imbeciles, damn the legal consequences. This brand of popularism is pushed by people who are only out there to sell you snake oil. Jones, Peterson, Trump, Carlson, Phelps, all of them. They know who their audience is.
 
Comparing them to some influencers on the internet who mainly regurgitate news headlines from other sources and occasionally stick a joke in there is pretty wild. LTT has screwdrivers and water bottles to sell, products they had engineered, not repackaged overpriced homeopathic remedies and ghost written books with their names on it.
 

Summary
 Bell (Canadian ISP, Television service provider, and content licensor to other Television services) is now going to delete your cloud PVR recordings after 60 days.
 
Quotes
 
My thoughts
 Given that it's direct competitor in the market, Rogers, has a 1 year expiry, Telus has 90 days, why is there an expiry at all? So the ISP can free up disk space? So they can force their users to watch the VOD version of the same show they don't have all the episodes to? To force people to watch Netflix or CraveTV if they want to watch the entire series?
 
Like I've long since complained about Telus's complete incompetence about having any shows on their VOD service. You might click a TV show and you might have the most recent episode and one episode from 2 years ago, and nothing else. The ISP's VOD services are absolutely worthless because they want you to pay for CraveTV, because they directly profit from that.
 
Given that ISP's no longer even offer local PVR's and you can't buy PVR's that hook up to HDMI (legitimately) is this yet another attempt and destroying media?
 
Sources
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/pvr-pullback-bell-to-delete-viewers-saved-tv-shows-and-movies-after-60-days-1.6834904

Yep, and that's why it doesn't belong in creative fields, let alone creative problem solving.