Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

wanderingfool2

Member
  • Content Count

    839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from Brinith in President of El Salvador: "buy the dip"   
    Other crytpos maybe.  Bitcoin the way I see it is too flawed as it currently stands to act as any form of legal tender.
     
    For this, you would have to argue against the following:
    - 1 blockchain about every 10 minutes.  [144 a day]
    - Let's even assume 10,000 transactions per block (which it's not...it's more like 3k), that's 1.44 million transactions a day.  There are an estimated 1.01 billion bank transactions per day (https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-transactions-per-day-year/).  You are off by a factor of 1000x for banking transactions per day...plus the added transaction cost [which back end banks would not be paying].  Oh, also if you include credit card transactions, you are talking about 5000 transactions a second (another 1000x more than what is currently capable).
     
    So yea, it's not feasible.  Also, there in general is too much instability in the pricing of BitCoin (and crypto in general)
  2. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from StDragon in President of El Salvador: "buy the dip"   
    Other crytpos maybe.  Bitcoin the way I see it is too flawed as it currently stands to act as any form of legal tender.
     
    For this, you would have to argue against the following:
    - 1 blockchain about every 10 minutes.  [144 a day]
    - Let's even assume 10,000 transactions per block (which it's not...it's more like 3k), that's 1.44 million transactions a day.  There are an estimated 1.01 billion bank transactions per day (https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-transactions-per-day-year/).  You are off by a factor of 1000x for banking transactions per day...plus the added transaction cost [which back end banks would not be paying].  Oh, also if you include credit card transactions, you are talking about 5000 transactions a second (another 1000x more than what is currently capable).
     
    So yea, it's not feasible.  Also, there in general is too much instability in the pricing of BitCoin (and crypto in general)
  3. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from mr moose in Developer suing Apple for (again) for stolen keyboard on new Apple Watch   
    Just a reminder, they've had their App likely reviewed 20+ times (as each update it would have been reviewed).  The way the guidelines are written, probably 90% of the apps are in some violation of the UI design guidelines.  They spelled it out quite clearly in the email that it's because it's a keyboard app for the iWatch (which Apple has apparently decreed as not being allowed).
     
    By "duplicate functionality" after the fact, do you mean because they now offer a keyboard?  If so, well that kind of is still messed up (and shouldn't be allowed).  Just because Apple starts offering something, doesn't mean they should be able to yank out the ability for the user to choose (especially if it existed before the feature).
     
    I don't necessarily have an issue with "Sherlocking" when it's them coming out with a product, and competing fairly (like the flashlight App, it doesn't really matter).  The issue is when they are doing things like this, where they pull a competitor from an app store, with timing right before the their release.  They did similar with Tile, where they denied access to the U1 chip so they couldn't complete their product (which Apple knew they were developing) and then Apple announced there own product only made possible with the U1 chip...while saying competitors could use the "find my" API (which conveniently would mean all the subscribers would become more involved with the Apple ecosystem). [Actually there was even more indepth with the Tile store, where they were invited to Apple to demonstrate their product as well].
     
    You also  have the camera, with using the volume as a trigger.  The camera app that implemented it got kicked out for repurposing the volume, but then Apple came out with that feature.  There has been quite a bit of history now that I think it at least requires some judicial review into whether to open a case into Apple to see the internal communications from the execs regarding these kinds of activities
  4. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from LAwLz in Developer suing Apple for (again) for stolen keyboard on new Apple Watch   
    Yea, I guess it was 2020...that's still a year and 20+ updates (which would have gone through a review process) [Actually I think I counted 25 updates...so Apple would have reviewed it 25 time...and I can say that in that the 26th time they tried is when they got this response] 
     
    While it might not be as clear cut as it's made out publicly...one does have to notice that Apple seems to have a habit of doing this kind of thing.  They did it with Tile (blocked their access to an API that would have increased accuracy and then announced a competing product, and I believe there was more as well), they did that with using the volume rocker to take a picture (killed the app that supported it, under "didn't meet UI standards" and then released their own camera).
     
    Honestly, I don't have a problem with it if Apple didn't use underhanded tactics (or at least apparently).
     
    If Apple had just released their own competing product, even if it was almost a copy (which I mean it's a keyboard there wasn't much to innovate...so not really copying anyways) and left the competitors up without going through all this I would have no problem.  Sure Apple would still take over the market because their app would be a default on all watches, but at least it still is roughly fair (and I would not have any issues with it).
  5. Like
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from LAwLz in Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows   
    If you read what I said, the way I was saying it should be done appears to be the Apple methodology.  The way Windows had it prior W10 was a security risk, I've seen the outcomes of it, but again in the same sentence I said that they should be implementing it with a pop-up that just confirms the change when requested by the program.  It's a safe and easy way to implement it (and by the looks of it how Apple does things)
     
    Just because I say I understand something is done for security, doesn't mean that it is the correct way (which is why I mentioned the alternative better solution)...but Windows 10 way is better than the prior experiences where it was a free for all.
  6. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from LAwLz in Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows   
    No, that is wrong.  On Edge, if you say set as default browser it does so without any additional prompts or without putting you to the Window 10 Default Apps setting page.  It really is a one stop shop there.
     
    Further, for FireFox when it included a button it had to open Windows Default App, you had to then click on Firefox, you then are confronted on "Try using Edge" instead (with the prompt to use Edge being the big blue button and the "switch anyways" is a hyperlink blue text underneath the button).  In this case, Microsoft needs to play by the same rules it is imposing on other browser makers.  No reverting back to the classical IE days where they use undocumented/hidden API's in order to gain advantages over the competitor
  7. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from jagdtigger in Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows   
    No, that is wrong.  On Edge, if you say set as default browser it does so without any additional prompts or without putting you to the Window 10 Default Apps setting page.  It really is a one stop shop there.
     
    Further, for FireFox when it included a button it had to open Windows Default App, you had to then click on Firefox, you then are confronted on "Try using Edge" instead (with the prompt to use Edge being the big blue button and the "switch anyways" is a hyperlink blue text underneath the button).  In this case, Microsoft needs to play by the same rules it is imposing on other browser makers.  No reverting back to the classical IE days where they use undocumented/hidden API's in order to gain advantages over the competitor
  8. Agree
    wanderingfool2 reacted to Spotty in Developer suing Apple for (again) for stolen keyboard on new Apple Watch   
    I'm not against Apple or Google incorporating new features in to their devices that were previously provided for by third party apps, or "sherlocking" as it's called. It would stifle progress if they couldn't incorporate new features just because third party apps were already doing it. I remember on an old (very old) phone I needed a dedicated third party torch app to use my camera flash as a torch, now my current phone just has it as a built in feature and I can just toggle it off and on from the quick access menu and it's so much better. Having swipe keyboard built in as an option for the watch keyboard sounds great to me, I'm honestly surprised Apple hadn't already done it.
     
    What I don't understand is why would Apple bother pulling this app from the store and risk the negative PR associated, let alone a lawsuit? If Apple released a swipe keyboard on the Apple watch and offered it as a pre-installed feature then every Apple watch would have it. There would be no need for people to download a third party option and either the third party developers would change to offer additional features or they will become obsolete and stop providing the app. Yes, that does suck for the developer but they can either innovate their app/service to offer something the default option doesn't offer, maybe targeting some niche use case, or they can just let it become obsolete and stop developing it. What benefit is there for Apple to pull it from the store? It wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't the full story.
  9. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from LAwLz in South Korea fines Google ₩207 billion for forking up attempts at creating Android variants   
    This is I think a really hard issue to tackle.  At least what is visible externally, it does seem that Google is using their position of power in a monopolistic way; which it should not ever be allowed to do.
     
    A key point here is if you don't sign up for early access, you don't get access to Google Play, Youtube or other Google services (which make up a large chunk of what Android users expect).  If you sign up for the early access though, you are prevented from creating your own devices that use a forked version.  So in effect, it effectively makes forking a no-go for anyone serious about making an android phone (especially now that more and more apps are being linked to Google Services).
     
    I do get that Google should be allowed more leway in terms of what they are forcing on companies, as the tight integration with Google services (and then controlling default searches) is where they intended to make their money off of...but there needs to be a certain amount of limitations.
     
    With all this said, I don't know what the early access agreement is like and how much of the Google Services agreement is requiring early access so that when they update Google Services it doesn't break on a bunch of phones (because the companies weren't able to test and adjust the OS)
  10. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from LAwLz in Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows   
    I think you are missing the general point that Windows 11 appears as though it won't have the "Default Browser" option under the setting...rather it's a per file association access.  That will mean that in Windows 11, to make it the default browser you will effectively have to go through and change multiple extensions.
     
    The other issue is that if Microsoft is allowed doing it for their browser, other browsers should be allowed doing it (without putting the user to the menu).  A fun fact as well, I've seen it where Microsoft doesn't recognize the program as being "valid" (i.e. would have to reinstall it to allow it to be set as default)...so in that case it actually adds a lot more a lot more trouble.  While it wasn't a web-browser, I had a few systems that did that with Adobe PDF (they had it set as default), then an user changed it to edge by mistake, then was asking for Adobe again...and I literally had to reinstall Adobe to set it as default again.
     
    I understand that it's a security thing, but Microsoft could have made it so that it pops up with a warning to the user, and the user can just click yes or cancel to let the application set the defaults
  11. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from dalekphalm in Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows   
    I think you are missing the general point that Windows 11 appears as though it won't have the "Default Browser" option under the setting...rather it's a per file association access.  That will mean that in Windows 11, to make it the default browser you will effectively have to go through and change multiple extensions.
     
    The other issue is that if Microsoft is allowed doing it for their browser, other browsers should be allowed doing it (without putting the user to the menu).  A fun fact as well, I've seen it where Microsoft doesn't recognize the program as being "valid" (i.e. would have to reinstall it to allow it to be set as default)...so in that case it actually adds a lot more a lot more trouble.  While it wasn't a web-browser, I had a few systems that did that with Adobe PDF (they had it set as default), then an user changed it to edge by mistake, then was asking for Adobe again...and I literally had to reinstall Adobe to set it as default again.
     
    I understand that it's a security thing, but Microsoft could have made it so that it pops up with a warning to the user, and the user can just click yes or cancel to let the application set the defaults
  12. Informative
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from Mark Kaine in Mozilla has defeated Microsoft’s default browser protections in Windows   
    I think you are missing the general point that Windows 11 appears as though it won't have the "Default Browser" option under the setting...rather it's a per file association access.  That will mean that in Windows 11, to make it the default browser you will effectively have to go through and change multiple extensions.
     
    The other issue is that if Microsoft is allowed doing it for their browser, other browsers should be allowed doing it (without putting the user to the menu).  A fun fact as well, I've seen it where Microsoft doesn't recognize the program as being "valid" (i.e. would have to reinstall it to allow it to be set as default)...so in that case it actually adds a lot more a lot more trouble.  While it wasn't a web-browser, I had a few systems that did that with Adobe PDF (they had it set as default), then an user changed it to edge by mistake, then was asking for Adobe again...and I literally had to reinstall Adobe to set it as default again.
     
    I understand that it's a security thing, but Microsoft could have made it so that it pops up with a warning to the user, and the user can just click yes or cancel to let the application set the defaults
  13. Informative
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from Kilrah in Got an Apple product? Make sure it's updated [Zero-day, zero click, FORCEDENTRY]   
    Apple has released an emergency security patch for iPhones, iWatches, Macs, and iPads.  The flaw exists in iMessage and is exploited by sending a specially crafted psd file and has been used by the NSO group to install Pegasus spyware.  The exploit was discovered by a team of researchers analyzing phones of people who had the spyware and has now been patched.
     
    If you own an Apple product make sure it is up-to-date; as I'm sure it's just bound time before someone reverses it and tries a non-targets general attack.
     
    https://citizenlab.ca/2021/09/forcedentry-nso-group-imessage-zero-click-exploit-captured-in-the-wild/
    https://gizmodo.com/go-update-your-iphone-ipad-mac-and-apple-watch-right-1847667694
     
    This doesn't really surprise me.  It always seems as though it is the image processing that ends up being the target of exploits (so many things that can go wrong in an image file, and yet users expect that images should be displayed).  I predict that there will be a day when one of these exploits (either Android or Apple...or worse both at once) are released for the sole purpose of disruption of the cell network (terrorist kind of attack).  Imagine if this was used to make it self replicating, sends a message to all the person's friends contacts, and then all at once kill the device or flood the network.  With our modern reliance on phones, this kind of attack could be used to severely disrupt commerce.
     
    This is also why I dislike auto-preview from unknown contacts...I'm surprised that more apps don't have the option to disable that.
  14. Informative
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from Spotty in Got an Apple product? Make sure it's updated [Zero-day, zero click, FORCEDENTRY]   
    Apple has released an emergency security patch for iPhones, iWatches, Macs, and iPads.  The flaw exists in iMessage and is exploited by sending a specially crafted psd file and has been used by the NSO group to install Pegasus spyware.  The exploit was discovered by a team of researchers analyzing phones of people who had the spyware and has now been patched.
     
    If you own an Apple product make sure it is up-to-date; as I'm sure it's just bound time before someone reverses it and tries a non-targets general attack.
     
    https://citizenlab.ca/2021/09/forcedentry-nso-group-imessage-zero-click-exploit-captured-in-the-wild/
    https://gizmodo.com/go-update-your-iphone-ipad-mac-and-apple-watch-right-1847667694
     
    This doesn't really surprise me.  It always seems as though it is the image processing that ends up being the target of exploits (so many things that can go wrong in an image file, and yet users expect that images should be displayed).  I predict that there will be a day when one of these exploits (either Android or Apple...or worse both at once) are released for the sole purpose of disruption of the cell network (terrorist kind of attack).  Imagine if this was used to make it self replicating, sends a message to all the person's friends contacts, and then all at once kill the device or flood the network.  With our modern reliance on phones, this kind of attack could be used to severely disrupt commerce.
     
    This is also why I dislike auto-preview from unknown contacts...I'm surprised that more apps don't have the option to disable that.
  15. Like
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from RockSolid1106 in Got an Apple product? Make sure it's updated [Zero-day, zero click, FORCEDENTRY]   
    Apple has released an emergency security patch for iPhones, iWatches, Macs, and iPads.  The flaw exists in iMessage and is exploited by sending a specially crafted psd file and has been used by the NSO group to install Pegasus spyware.  The exploit was discovered by a team of researchers analyzing phones of people who had the spyware and has now been patched.
     
    If you own an Apple product make sure it is up-to-date; as I'm sure it's just bound time before someone reverses it and tries a non-targets general attack.
     
    https://citizenlab.ca/2021/09/forcedentry-nso-group-imessage-zero-click-exploit-captured-in-the-wild/
    https://gizmodo.com/go-update-your-iphone-ipad-mac-and-apple-watch-right-1847667694
     
    This doesn't really surprise me.  It always seems as though it is the image processing that ends up being the target of exploits (so many things that can go wrong in an image file, and yet users expect that images should be displayed).  I predict that there will be a day when one of these exploits (either Android or Apple...or worse both at once) are released for the sole purpose of disruption of the cell network (terrorist kind of attack).  Imagine if this was used to make it self replicating, sends a message to all the person's friends contacts, and then all at once kill the device or flood the network.  With our modern reliance on phones, this kind of attack could be used to severely disrupt commerce.
     
    This is also why I dislike auto-preview from unknown contacts...I'm surprised that more apps don't have the option to disable that.
  16. Informative
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from thechinchinsong in Australian Surveillance Bill allows Law Enforcement to Add to, Modify, or Delete Anyone's Data, and Take Over Their Online Accounts   
    By the sounds of it, the general bill was there and the committee reviewed it and gave recommendations...the trick is though after those recommendations (which apparently weren't implemented) they made amendments and voted on the bill.  A similar thing happened here (in the sense of a bill trying to get pushed through)...it goes to a committee but then the governing party makes last minute changes (good or bad) without any further review.
     
    While there might be oversight committees, reading through the bill it seems to me as though it things can have quite loose standards.  (Also, it's just a magistrate that they need signing off on a warrant)
     
    To this topic
    For myself the concerning thing would be that effectively this could be used to target someone, just suspected of a crime (but no proof) and the fact that someone wouldn't be alerted to the fact it occurs (even if no crime was found)...like everytime I see wording like follows makes me concerned about how much things could be abused.
     
    So that itself erodes it quite a lot...if there isn't an active investigation then a warrant should not be granted
     
    I get what the bill is trying to do, but I do think it's loosely worded and doesn't address some real concerns.  It seems as though it just will be open for abuse.
  17. Like
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from cj09beira in Australian Surveillance Bill allows Law Enforcement to Add to, Modify, or Delete Anyone's Data, and Take Over Their Online Accounts   
    By the sounds of it, the general bill was there and the committee reviewed it and gave recommendations...the trick is though after those recommendations (which apparently weren't implemented) they made amendments and voted on the bill.  A similar thing happened here (in the sense of a bill trying to get pushed through)...it goes to a committee but then the governing party makes last minute changes (good or bad) without any further review.
     
    While there might be oversight committees, reading through the bill it seems to me as though it things can have quite loose standards.  (Also, it's just a magistrate that they need signing off on a warrant)
     
    To this topic
    For myself the concerning thing would be that effectively this could be used to target someone, just suspected of a crime (but no proof) and the fact that someone wouldn't be alerted to the fact it occurs (even if no crime was found)...like everytime I see wording like follows makes me concerned about how much things could be abused.
     
    So that itself erodes it quite a lot...if there isn't an active investigation then a warrant should not be granted
     
    I get what the bill is trying to do, but I do think it's loosely worded and doesn't address some real concerns.  It seems as though it just will be open for abuse.
  18. Agree
    wanderingfool2 reacted to leadeater in Australian Surveillance Bill allows Law Enforcement to Add to, Modify, or Delete Anyone's Data, and Take Over Their Online Accounts   
    Well that entirely depends on what is being done, how and why. I very much doubt planted evidence really is a thing nor admissible in court and the defense can file a motion as it being such that and then proof would be required as to what that evidence is.
     
    Like my CSAM example, right now police do not have the powers or are allowed to use evidence from planting digital tracking into a persons account yet they are allowed to plant a GPS tracker on your car. They are allowed to honey pot you with their own websites or accounts etc but that's not always that effective where as infiltrating a known person's account who is part of a CSAM group and planting digital tracking would be more effective but far as I know that isn't allowed until these amendments were passed.
     
    Just because a piece of legislation allows them to do certain types of acts that doesn't actually mean they have unlimited exercise of those powers. Police can already just throw a bag of cocaine in your car, claim it is yours and log it as evidence and charge you with possession but that doesn't mean they do it or get away with it does it. Now of course there is plenty of historical examples of police corruption and evidence tampering or planting which has lead to tighter scrutiny and less of it, I mean even here in my country there was quite a big problem with that in the 80's but today, no. 
  19. Like
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from leadeater in Australian Surveillance Bill allows Law Enforcement to Add to, Modify, or Delete Anyone's Data, and Take Over Their Online Accounts   
    The issue is that this is in relation to taking over the account of someone, and in effect also creating a gag order.
     
    While what I am about to say might not have happened (I don't really have time to look all into it), what could and I'm assuming has happened here is that it did go through the committee, recommendations were made, then amendments were made and tabled for vote.  They key part being that any further amendments would have only been given 24 hours to actually look at the amendments and protest against it.
     
    The key I think being that the amendments could very well have been not public and not set to oversight until the 24 hours before, thus preventing any proper public pressure.  I haven't looked at the bill though to see what the differences between the bit that was under review and the one with the amendments were.  Ideally though, what should have happened would be the committee makes recommendations, final amendments are made, all parties are able to review in a reasonable time (and make media attention) not 24 hours.
     
    I haven't really looked into what it was prior to the amendments, but in a hypothetical if the amendments were only shown when the final bill was tabled and they included the terms "likely to be" and other loosening terms then I can understand how having only 24 hours to review and vote on such changes can be challenging.
     
    From what I've read (but I glanced over a lot of it), the modifying of data is a lot more strictly controlled and is used in the event of an emergency (i.e. something like they an email coming in that says "terminate the targets", they would be able to modify it to prevent the act from happening).
     
    On a side note, where encryption of data is done via user passwords...I could see this bill being troublesome.  Given in effect they could require some sort of logging of the password to gain access to the account.
  20. Informative
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from tikker in Australian Surveillance Bill allows Law Enforcement to Add to, Modify, or Delete Anyone's Data, and Take Over Their Online Accounts   
    The issue is that this is in relation to taking over the account of someone, and in effect also creating a gag order.
     
    While what I am about to say might not have happened (I don't really have time to look all into it), what could and I'm assuming has happened here is that it did go through the committee, recommendations were made, then amendments were made and tabled for vote.  They key part being that any further amendments would have only been given 24 hours to actually look at the amendments and protest against it.
     
    The key I think being that the amendments could very well have been not public and not set to oversight until the 24 hours before, thus preventing any proper public pressure.  I haven't looked at the bill though to see what the differences between the bit that was under review and the one with the amendments were.  Ideally though, what should have happened would be the committee makes recommendations, final amendments are made, all parties are able to review in a reasonable time (and make media attention) not 24 hours.
     
    I haven't really looked into what it was prior to the amendments, but in a hypothetical if the amendments were only shown when the final bill was tabled and they included the terms "likely to be" and other loosening terms then I can understand how having only 24 hours to review and vote on such changes can be challenging.
     
    From what I've read (but I glanced over a lot of it), the modifying of data is a lot more strictly controlled and is used in the event of an emergency (i.e. something like they an email coming in that says "terminate the targets", they would be able to modify it to prevent the act from happening).
     
    On a side note, where encryption of data is done via user passwords...I could see this bill being troublesome.  Given in effect they could require some sort of logging of the password to gain access to the account.
  21. Like
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from leadeater in Australian Surveillance Bill allows Law Enforcement to Add to, Modify, or Delete Anyone's Data, and Take Over Their Online Accounts   
    By the sounds of it, the general bill was there and the committee reviewed it and gave recommendations...the trick is though after those recommendations (which apparently weren't implemented) they made amendments and voted on the bill.  A similar thing happened here (in the sense of a bill trying to get pushed through)...it goes to a committee but then the governing party makes last minute changes (good or bad) without any further review.
     
    While there might be oversight committees, reading through the bill it seems to me as though it things can have quite loose standards.  (Also, it's just a magistrate that they need signing off on a warrant)
     
    To this topic
    For myself the concerning thing would be that effectively this could be used to target someone, just suspected of a crime (but no proof) and the fact that someone wouldn't be alerted to the fact it occurs (even if no crime was found)...like everytime I see wording like follows makes me concerned about how much things could be abused.
     
    So that itself erodes it quite a lot...if there isn't an active investigation then a warrant should not be granted
     
    I get what the bill is trying to do, but I do think it's loosely worded and doesn't address some real concerns.  It seems as though it just will be open for abuse.
  22. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from thechinchinsong in ThrillSeeker getting censored for criticizing ByteDance   
    It's very important though to make the distinction though that what he claimed is in effect saying that ByteDance censored him via YouTube.  That is quite a bold point to make (with him saying the views dropped to only like 2).  I find it unlikely that an American company would allow a video to be censored based on criticism of a Chinese based company.  Sure they could be censoring for other reasons, but again he offered up no proof of analytics or anything like that...it amounts to "trust me" type of argument
  23. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from thechinchinsong in ThrillSeeker getting censored for criticizing ByteDance   
    I doubt that YouTube a subsidiary of Alphabet an US company would just "shadow ban" a video of someone's that criticizes a company from China...sure censoring inside of China yes, but not worldwide.  There are plenty of videos that would have been shadow banned otherwise (along with the political implications if Alphabet ever released that they were doing so).
     
    Without seeing what the original video was, and what the analytics were on it, it's hard to actually say what might have happened.  After all, his Oculus 2 review had 87k videos in 2 months...that implies to me that maybe a decent amount of his viewers clicked on the video, saw a bit of the review and left (or just never clicked on the video).  Compare that to his recent video which averaged a thousand an hour and is above the 98k mark in 3 days.  So maybe, just maybe the people who saw the video saw it and the view count dropped off the map after that because it already was delivered to the people who would watch it (just the timing is coincidental).  Or maybe there was actually something slightly offensive said in it (that would get the video shadow banned...like mentioning certain words)
     
    Not saying that shadow bans don't happen, or that it isn't what happened...but things don't add up when it's a criticism about a competing company and not really showing any proof of that (and if the original video is gone, then there isn't any way for people to really verify the claim)
  24. Like
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from Quackers101 in Amazon trying to slow Starlink   
    The important distinction is the types of satellites.  A lot of them are deep space satellite internet (really high latency, due to travel time)..high coverage horrible ping.  The LEO ones, are low coverage, but low latency.
     
    Effectively, if SpaceX can get to the number of satellites they are wanting to, they will effectively hold a monopoly on satellite internet (not saying that it's a bad thing though...because if that happens, then the governments could step in and force a certain profit margin for the services)...just saying though that if the trend continues, SpaceX could get a monopoly type of hold on it.
     
    I would disagree.  Right now, Starlink is far ahead of it's competitors but the solution should never be to slow down a company to let others catch up.  Under that kind of mentality, we would still be stuck sending astronauts to the ISS on Russian spacecrafts.
     
    The lawsuits are what is slowing down the technology..as it stands though, Starlink isn't a monopoly yet.
     
    Actually, their complaint (very slightly valid) is that SpaceX is requesting 2 sections of space essentially being reserved.  With that said, one is a backup location in the event Starship isn't able to deliver satellites.  Some of the previous complaints also being slightly valid that they were starting to encroach on Amazon's allotted space for the experimental constellation.
     
    With that said, I hate the move of suing, especially given that they aren't anywhere near ready yet to launch...and especially given you have Bezos who came out and talked about how this kind of move is what stifles current processes (the bottleneck being lawsuits)
  25. Agree
    wanderingfool2 got a reaction from leadeater in Windows 11 to release on Oct 5th, No Android App support at launch   
    In this day and age, more and more things are moving away from PC versions and just having a web interface or app as your only option...with the PC version being toned down, or given a lot less support (in my opinion).
     
    A real-world example would be that Nest (doorbell camera) would be a lot easier on the PC as well...because my phone is sometimes in another room.
    Fit-bit is another example, setting it up for someone who doesn't really use their phone...the PC app is terrible (and while it paired it didn't work)
     
    While it isn't a huge selling point for me...I actually do appreciate it being an option.
     
     
×