It is still less environmental damage to keep an old vehicle on the road and not create a new one. Some cars can literally last forever (these models are well known) if they are looked after.
The scrap yards are btw filling up with modern cars quite quickly because people cannot afford to repair new cars, or the cars are uneconomical to repair even after minor collisions. Whereas a lot of old cars (pre-2010) can be fixed on your driveway with easily affordable tools.
Yep. Many of them are still good and are on the road even with 100,000s of miles on them. Best car I had was a 2007 Vauxhall Astra. Did about 150,000 miles (and I really ragged it). Still on the road apparently. The 2012 Vauxhall Insignia I have isn't great and I regret selling the Astra. Will be selling that car soon.
They didn't say "is" they said "might be," which is a reasonable assumption to make given how ubiquitous the use of AI has become. One has to assume all content one encounters online is at best AI assisted and at worst entirely AI generated unless some explicit statement to the contrary is made, and even then, one should doubt.
They are complaining about the hero image (which is pretty inoffensive). Which is ridiculous. It is no different than using a stock image asset for some decoration, which is what people would have used before the current AI tools. Therefore I consider it unreasonable on the face of it.
I shouldn't really have to explain this, but here we are.
I don't care about how you wish to split hairs because I made a minor mistake, nor do I care about your rationalisations for an obviously ridiculous critique.
It is partly the network effect. However all the alternatives having serious issues:
- Odysee - has performance issues and the app is crap and no discoverability. Some niche, interesting content on there but a lot of the time I only used it because someone would upload Joe Rogan stuff while he was exclusive to Spotify.
- BitChute - full of racists and not a lot else, crap discoverability. The website feels like something from the 2000s.
- Rumble - US/UK right wing slop politics and conspiracy rubbish from David Icke wannabes. I don't like the interface at all. Tends to work okay. But there is very few things I want to watch/listen to on there. Discoverability isn't great.
- Daily motion - I remember it being decent a decade ago, but it has fallen behind and turned into something else from briefly looking at the home page.
- Twitch - Streaming platform only, I think. There is a lot of slop left wing politics on it and (for want of a better term) "titty streamers". I have visited the site once, not for me.
- Kick - Basically Twitch but has more permissive T&C. Bankrolled by Stake.com IIRC. I watch one live show if I am awake to watch it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with it.
I spend most of my time on YouTube watching stuff either about Computers, Repairing 4x4 trucks, Weird Soviet Era vehicles, WW2 stuff by Mark Felton or some sort of Tech related stuff. None of that is catered to on the alternative sites at all. None of that is catered by TV particularly well either.
- Odysee - Has an easily accessible RSS feed, a link to download every video and it has no ads. Unfortunately nothing original going on here. Just a repository for YouTube's sloppy seconds.
- BitChute - If you can get past the 'racists' and the MGTOW gayness that dominates the front page, this site has a rather large catalog of free movies available.
- Rumble - If you can get past the political slop, this site streams a lot of NFL sportsball for free .
- Twitch - I used to go here to watch my sportsball but the site is now overexposed, old and busted. Can't go five seconds with a copyright notice appearing.
I had a long held belief that Hitler escaped to South America. This belief BTW isn't that not that uncommon. This is because many other Nazis escaped to South America (including Martin Bormann) and it is perpetuated by Slop rubbish like "Hunting Hitler" TV series, stories about Hotel Bariloche etc.
The reason I no longer believe it is because I was ready to unbelieve it. I was no longer personally invested in it. I was personally invested in it because I believed it was "secret knowledge".
I finally accepted that it did not happen when I watched Mark Felton on Youtube do a 6 part series talking about the soviet investigation into Hitler's death. If I had watched that series several years earlier I wouldn't have accepted the facts contained within it.
> You can't change minds because "the mind" (in this context) is the personal identity and ego of an individual, of which their "tribe" is a huge part. Any information that conflicts with the narrative of their identity or tribe will be rejected, because it threatens their identity or tribe. To question one's identity causes a crisis which most people are not capable of dealing with. The more you attack those things, the stronger they will defend them.
This sounds like the friend-enemy distinction by Carl Schmitt.
You need to think about what the browser is actually doing when it displays a web page. You need to think about what happens when you type the URL in and what the browser is doing conceptually.
If you have any experience programming 2D graphics with SDL this will help you to understand what is happening as well.
There is an old school talk by Nikolas Zakas on JavaScript Performance from 2009 which while some of it is out of date now due to improvements in Browser engines, the fundamental ideas are still the same.
If you skip to the 35 minute mark he speaks about reflow specifically. Generally I still use many of these techniques when writing vanilla JS (which is unfortunately rare these days). There are other talks where he talks about many other performance specific topics.
Obviously none of this is as good as real world experience of dealing with a thorny issue.
> If you have any experience programming 2D graphics with SDL this will help you to understand what is happening as well.
No. No it will not. Nothing in 2D graphics will help you understand things like "simple animation required full layout re-calculation and re-painting of the entire page"
Which draw calls result in "changing border width will cause a full page re-flow in some browsers, and bot others"?
Which draw calls are "literally any animation will cause the full re-flow of the document unless you make sure an element is not a part of the document, but then you'll have issues with positioning, weird gaps etc."
Which draw calls teach you that "well, this primitive animation consumes 15% of CPU, but will only consume 6% if you go out of your way to make it 'performant'"?
You are being disingenuous. I can always use some hyper specific example to disprove any statement about what is generally true. That doesn't mean that understanding what is typically happening is useless. Which is essentially what your claim is.
> You are being disingenuous. I can always use some hyper specific example
These are not hyperspecific examples. We're literally discussing under an article which has a primitive animation which was, quote, "using 60% CPU and 25% GPU on [a] M2 MacBook"
How is 2D graphics programming helping there?
The article goes on to describe, correctly, layout properties ("The W3C spec is full of these!"), paint properties ("this tiny "bikeshed" SVG which you can find on lots of W3C spec pages. It costs ~30% CPU!") and composite properties.
These are not specific examples. These are literally footguns upon footguns that literally have no corresponding counterpart anywhere.
> That doesn't mean that understanding what is typically happening is useless. Which is essentially what your claim is.
Yes, knowing 2D graphics programming is 100% useless to understand what's happening with CSS and DOM.
> These are not hyperspecific examples. We're literally discussing under an article which has a primitive animation which was, quote, "using 60% CPU and 25% GPU on [a] M2 MacBook".
No we are not. Someone asked about how one learns some techniques that the OP mentioned (that were simpler than the ones given in the article). I gave some general advice on how one should think about what is happening and some general advice about how to think about performance.
Then you are pretending that none of this is relevant because you are concentrating on the hyper specific stuff in the article (which we are no longer talking about).
I also disagree that this cannot be reasoned about by learning a bit about how graphics works, Cartesian coordinate system and literally turning on the paint flashing tool that is in dev tools. It is literally obvious what is happening when you see it.
> Yes, knowing 2D graphics programming is 100% useless to understand what's happening with CSS and DOM.
In fact it was very helpful to help me to understand what was happening. I literally said to myself "wait a minute, that is kinda like this thing I did in SDL 1.2 in university". You are literally telling me, that something I know to be useful isn't, because you say so. That is unreasonable.
Yes. Yes we are literally discussing this under an article whose introduction literally says what I quoted.
> Someone asked about how one learns some techniques that the OP mentioned
Yes, and the techniques OP mentioned literally cannot be learned from 2D graphics because nowhere in 2D graphics are you going "ah yes, to fix 60% CPU utilization for a primitive animation, you need to apply this awkward workaround that will tell the browser not to reflow the page".
Edit: and this particular technique is only applicable to this specific property for reasons that do not exist anywhere else, except in the browsers.
> wait a minute, that is kinda like this thing I did in SDL 1.2 in university
You are supposed to have a 4th & 5th Amendment rights in the US. However a Judge can order you to decrypt a drive given probable cause IIRC. There have been cases where Judges have jailed people for disobeying an order to decrypt a drive.
We do not. There are so many caveats in relevant part of the human rights act.
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
While the US has restrictions on speech, there are far far fewer restrictions.
The "uncodified constitution" that we have doesn't guarantee you "Freedom of Speech" either. I've read the relevant parts of the constitution in the UK. It gives Parliamentarians the right to unlimited speech.
Finally "Freedom of Expression" and "Freedom of Speech" are not the same thing.
Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided:
"This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no freedom of speech, in the same way we can agree the Moon is clearly outside our atmosphere. But in the margins it comes down to where you draw the line.
There's also a difference when it comes to theory and practice. In theory the US is more permissive; it lacks the ECHR's caveats that permit restricting speech to protect health, morals and territorial integrity. But in practice the US is rated as coming below the UK in the World Press Freedom Index and the Freedom of Expression Index. The US government has a lot of power to lean on organisations and individuals to stifle speech, which of course it's currently doing.
Neither the World Press Freedom Index nor the Freedom of Expression Index are particularly good measures of government restrictions on individual's speech.
The former includes things like how much editorial control journalists are subjected to, the right of journalists to unionize, the cost to print/distribute newspapers, whether journalists are subject to economic constraints (like being dependent on advertising money), etc.
The later is not only far more opaque in how it measures things, relying on a panel of country-specific experts, but it also more press/media related and includes things like media bias and print/media perspectives which is more about diversity of press opinion than freedom of expression (arguably, media bias shouldn't negative affect a freedom of expression index unless it is government imposed).
A more objective comparison of freedom of expression/speech would rate how the government would respond to specific instances of public and private speech - like say calling for the king/president/prime minister/etc. to be replaced, posting nudes (or going nude), blaspheme a particular religion, publishing embarrassing and reputation harming information about a celebrity/someone powerful/a judge/a religious figure, playing loud music outside, refusing to speak when ordered to by a police/judge/legislature/ruler, wearing the clothes various sexes, etc.
It might be difficult to create perfectly equivalent speech across countries, but I think one could get close enough.
I'm not sure I buy that we can entirely separate the freedoms of journalists from the freedoms of individuals; but I do like your idea of coming up with a list of criteria for measuring the freedom of speech for individuals. It seems a useful point of comparison. Where I think you'd need to be careful is in weighting the criteria.
These Indexes exist so that people (that may have an agenda) can point to it and say "well we aren't as bad as these other places" and can dismiss the actual issues that exist.
No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words.
Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism.
I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of Speech in the US is enshrined in the constitution. It is not enshrined anywhere in UK law.
As for the section you quoted, that is made effectively moot by the exceptions that I originally quoted.
Generally I am pretty tired of people engaging in apologia for the British state.
So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech?
I mean, I agree with you on that, but it's a circular argument.
My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech?
I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration!
I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue.
I personally agree that morality and territorial integrity aren't adequate reasons to restrict speech, and I'd say that a country without those restrictions has freer speech (from a legal perspective) than those with them. But again, it's a relative comparison; I wouldn't say that a country had no free speech if they did have those restrictions.
> So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech?
No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law.
I believe Freedom of Expression is weasel words to obfuscate the conversation as now you have an additional legal concept in the mix, with some nebulous definition that reads like a Terms and Conditions from one of the big tech players.
That is it.
> My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech?
It is the fact that it is brought up at all is engaging in whataboutism.
Why are you even mentioning NK? Why do you care what old Kim Jong does? Really think about why you are even mentioning North Korea. I don't expect or want an answer BTW.
> I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration!
I don't care about the left/right slop politics. I don't care who the "villian of the week" is. Most politics is presented to you in the same way as Scooby Doo.
Why do you care about what Donald Trump is doing in the US? Please actually think about why you are even mentioning it. I don't expect (or want) an answer BTW.
> I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue
The very fact that you are making this argument about gradients of freedom, and everyone has restrictions etc. Is literally the issue. The conversation about it has been obfuscated deliberately.
I don't care what restrictions they have in France, NK, China or anywhere else. That is their business.
I care about the restrictions in the UK, why they exist and whether they are valid.
As for the encryption back-doors, why do you think they actually want to do it? GCHQ just happens to be looking for more developers BTW! I know this for a fact because I had one of their recruiters phone me. I told him what I thought about the British state and not to ever call me again.
> No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law.
We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998.
Now, you've said you don't believe that the definition of freedom of expression in the HRA and ECHR lines up with your definition of free speech. That's fine. You are of course welcome to that opinion.
But you act as though your definition of free speech is authoritative, and yet you also have not defined it. When I've prompted you to narrow it down, you avoid the question.
So let me ask you extremely directly: what's your definition of "free speech"? Or to be more precise: which restrictions on speech are allowed, and which are forbidden, in order for a country to have "free speech" in your book?
No we don't. I've explained why. It even says in the text of the law the caveats it carves out.
But you can believe whatever fantasy you like. I am tired of trying to convince the fish that they are indeed swimming in water. The funniest thing is that until you've had it affect something/someone you like or respect, you won't change your mind.
BTW, I used to make all of the same arguments as you do btw about the Human Rights act and the ECHR etc. I realised after actually reading them, and seeing what actually happened and how the state operates, that what I believe was all bollox and I had been deceived.
> Now, you've said you don't believe that the definition of freedom of expression in the HRA and ECHR lines up with your definition of free speech. That's fine. You are of course welcome to that opinion.
It doesn't line up with any definition of free speech because it is a separate legal concept. I've already explained why they are different.
I happen to believe that legal concept is done deliberately so people like yourself will engage in this time wasting discussions about what is and isn't free expression. That is evidenced in this very discussion.
Ask yourself. If you happen to support Palestinian Action and do so publicly how long until police visit you or you are put on a watch list? Probably not long.
> But you act as though your definition of free speech is authoritative, and yet you also have not defined it. When I've prompted you to narrow it down, you avoid the question.
If I provide you with any sort of definition someone else will say "well that definition isn't correct", all of which ultimately deflects from the issue and is another waste of time.
The issue is that speech is restricted in the UK. It is done selectively. Some viewpoints are allowed by the British state and other aren't. Some of this is done directly, some of this is done indirectly.
e.g. There was a super injunction granted sometime last year to hide information about a large number of Afghan migrants / refugees / nationals being resettled after the Taliban took back control. Therefore the public, the press (little good they are) and presumably oppositional political parties couldn't scrutinise these plans. These types of super injunctions happen all the time.
What good is it that someone it is written on a piece of paper that you are legally able to have opposing view (as long as they fit inside the Overton window), when they literally hide information that is important for you to have any sort of informed view from you?
I asked you in my previous reply to go away and think about why certain narratives are presented to you. I never mentioned Trump, yet you seemed to want to talk about him without explicitly saying his name.
Someone somewhere wants you to worry about the press freedoms in the US. This is likely to distract you from more important things like the US have just landed some strategic nuclear bombers in the UK ahead of peace talks between Ukraine/Russia.
> So let me ask you extremely directly: what's your definition of "free speech"? Or to be more precise: which restrictions on speech are allowed, and which are forbidden, in order for a country to have "free speech" in your book?
It is irrelevant, I've explained why above. Any nation state will suppress your speech when it deems it to be necessary and will invent excuses as why it has to do it. That is the reality of it. How you choose to deal with that reality is your own choosing.
You believe that the HRA does not grant "free speech" due to some, or all, of the exceptions.
You refuse to define which specific exceptions you have a problem with, or define what you mean by "free speech", because if you did, people could argue against you.
That's all fine, but I wish you'd led with that. Next time write something like:
"I have my own definition of 'free speech' which I will not share, and according to this definition the UK has no freedom of speech."
The scrap yards are btw filling up with modern cars quite quickly because people cannot afford to repair new cars, or the cars are uneconomical to repair even after minor collisions. Whereas a lot of old cars (pre-2010) can be fixed on your driveway with easily affordable tools.