Basically Youtube instead of counting views via actual requests for the videos instead uses a separate call that essentially says "hey, someone watched this video". All the ad blockers rather than use a hard coded list of URLs to block which would quickly go stale instead use one of a couple different 3rd party lists the most popular of which is EasyList. EasyList decided to block the URL that youtube uses to register views on the principal that it was a privacy violation because it not only registers "hey someone watched this" but also captures exactly who watched it which allows Google to track your viewing habits.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 1094
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 1094
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
If this ever actually happens I will be drawing little hitler mustaches on every one I get.
Literally the only reason old school gamers play on CRTs is because old games were designed for the blurry low resolution displays they provided and so look kind of bad on modern crisp displays. You could just smear vasoline on a modern LCD and get roughly the same effect, but using a CRT is less messy.
It's also utter garbage. We abandoned CRTs because they sucked. They're heavy, waste tons of space, guzzle power, and have terrible resolution. Even the best CRT ever made is absolutely destroyed by the worst of modern LCDs. The only advantage you could possibly come up with is that in an emergency you could beat someone to death with a CRT. Well, that and the resolution was so garbage they had a natural form of antialiasing, but that's a really optimistic way of saying they were blurry as shit.
They're terrorists because they indiscriminately bomb civilians. If they were an official army they'd be war criminals the same way the IDF are war criminals for also indiscriminately bombing civilians. Anyone who bombs civilians (on purpose) is either a terrorist or a war criminal. People seem to be struggling with this concept that everyone in a conflict can be wrong, even if they have some legitimate grievances with each other.
Israel is absolutely stealing Palestinian land and has been for decades. They need to be evicted and that land returned to the Palestinian people. Palestine needs to be an independent country, Israel has demonstrated that they're incapable of leaving Palestine alone and a hard border between them is the only approach likely to fix that.
Hamas on the other hand has spent decades killing Israeli civilians and even if there was a two state solution would continue to stage attacks on Israel as a significant portion of their members are Islamic extremists (further complicated by support from neighboring Islamic countries that hate the idea of a Jewish state for religious reasons). The problem Palestine faces is that Hamas is the only force they have access to that can do anything against Israel even if that thing is to launch terrorist attacks.
There are strong parallels between Hamas and the IRA, another terrorist organization, but also stark differences. Both organizations have or had legitimate grievances they were responding to, but both also engaged in indiscriminate violence that did little to advance their stated goals. If by some miracle this current war is resolved without the genocide of the Palestinian people (a genocide the current Israeli leadership seems dedicated to) hopefully Hamas disbands the same way the IRA did, but I'm very doubtful of such an outcome, there is far too much religious and ethnic animosity in that region.
In a perfect world Palestine would be its own country, have its own army, and Israel and Palestine would work together to stamp out Hamas. If Israel tried to push into Palestinian territory the Palestinian army would push them back and if it came down to it the Palestinian military and IDF would fight each other. What the Palestinian army wouldn't be doing is murdering random Israeli civilians the way Hamas is (and if they did Palestine would face sanctions for those war crimes the same way Israel should be currently).
All of this is of course made significantly more complicated by the US primarily but also other countries supporting Israel because they have a terrible relationship with the Islamic countries in the region (for both good and bad reasons) and want a friendly country to use as a military outpost. The US has been far too involved with Israel for decades now and they've become far too invested in propping up the current administration (also the US has its own significant issues with its current administration).
Other countries need to stop supporting Israel and sanction them for both their war crimes and their decades of stealing Palestinian land. Hamas needs to be wiped out the same way ISIS does, but not by the IDF who have shown they're incapable of doing so without engaging in even worse atrocities than Hamas commits.
Blowing up random civilians isn't an act of vengeance, that's exactly the sort of atrocity that Israel is committing now. If Hamas restricted themselves to blowing up IDF bases and attacking IDF soldiers there would be no question that they're in the right, but they're mostly killing Israeli civilians which is just as wrong as when the IDF does it to Palestinian civilians. Just because one side is significantly more powerful than the other doesn't negate that. If the roles were reversed and it was Hamas who was committing genocide against Israel would you still be making this argument?
What's needed is an independent 3rd party. Israel needs to be forcibly removed from Palestinian land and the IDF disarmed until they can show they can do their job without murdering civilians. Hamas needs to be rooted out and Palestine needs an actual military that will be able to stand up to the IDF. None of that is going to happen under either Hamas or the current Israeli government, both of them would rather just keep murdering civilians.
Hamas is a violent terrorist organization, it just happens to also be the only one even remotely attempting to fight back against Israel's attacks. There are no "good guys" in this war (barring the victims just trying to live their lives), just bad and worse. Israel has been attacking Palestine both physically and via illegally seizing their land for decades, while Hamas has been staging terrorist attacks against Israel for just as long. It's hard not to fault the Palestinian people for supporting Hamas when they're the only ones that are doing literally anything to fight back against Israel, but that also doesn't make Hamas good. At best they're a necessary evil.
Hamas doesn't want peace, they want victory, but Israel doesn't want peace either, they want to finish the genocide they started decades ago. The only ones that actually want peace are the civilians that are stuck between Hamas and the IDF. Unlike Hamas though the international community supports the IDF even though the IDF is just as guilty of staging terror attacks as Hamas is.
- JumpRemoved
Senate unanimously passes Tuberville resolution for ‘National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk’
If this actually becomes a day make sure to celebrate it every year by sharing all of his best beliefs like how retirement is unbiblical and we should work until we literally fall over dead, or how black people had it better before slavery was abolished, and lets not forget his strong belief that a few gun deaths every year are totally worth it in order to preserve the 2nd amendment. I mean by that metric his killer was practically doing Charlie a favor by helping him protect the 2nd amendment right? It's really what he would have wanted.
Great opportunity for all of them to highlight the MAGA infestation that's breeding far right terrorists on their platforms. Oh, those weren't the radicals they were looking for? Weird those seem to be the only ones there, better luck next time.
It's not about sanctions, it's about what could become public. It's basically a free pass for the new york times to demand Trump hand over whatever documents they want and answer any questions they have under oath. Trump could of course ignore them, but that would also cause problems for him. Remember this isn't an individual he's up against at this point, it's a corporation. Corporations are just about the only ones that can actually make our corrupt legal system work because they can dump millions of dollars into legal motions and drag things out over years or even decades.
I saw an analysis that claims he screwed up massively with this lawsuit because the way he filed this waved his recently granted presidential immunity and opens him up to discovery and deposition. Even worse because all his recent scandals (like his very close relationship with Epstein) are relevant to the case he can't wiggle out of answering those questions. I really hope the new york times actually uses this opportunity to squeeze him rather than just sweeping the whole thing under the rug.
So this is the first chucklefuck they found who thought to harass ChatGPT until it hallucinated the result they wanted I guess. There's no chance whatever comes out of this has any kind of scientific rigor and it gets laughed out of every serious publication, but RFK will still tout it as proof to justify his batshit policies.
Literally Republicans now.
While that sounds plausible I'm hesitant to ascribe too much thought to Trump's actions. He has always been a moron who is easily manipulated. It could be blackmail, but it could also just as easily be someone with intimate access to him playing him like a fiddle. He's too fucking stupid to realize the actual consequences his actions have.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Really whether he did or didn't inform on Epstein is the least interesting and important part of the entire story. The more important question is whether the part about him outbidding Epstein on a mansion to money launder for Russia is true or not, and likewise on whether Epstein tried to blackmail him. The accusation that Trump informed on him was based entirely on Epstein believing he had from the sounds of it entirely based on the timing of his arrest. If we assume Epstein was wrong about that and it wasn't Trump that turned him in I don't think that really fundamentally changes anything at all. You still have Trump and Epstein having a falling out over Trumps other crimes, and events still play out in exactly the same fashion.
OK, in isolation saying it makes him look better if he informed on Epstein is true, but that ignores the larger story where the reason he did that was because of all the crimes he (being Trump) was committing. The rest of this is plausible, the thing I'm saying makes no sense is that this is somehow a pro-Trump move. This is like saying that you blew up a hospital with thousands of people in it because there was a serial killer in it as well. Sure it might slightly reduce how bad it makes him look, but it still makes him look worse than he currently does.
There's also the fact that Trump is currently doing literally anything he can think of to get people talking about literally anything but Epstein. The very last thing he'd want is to bring him up again even if it was somehow supposed to make him look better.
You didn't actually answer the question and just repeated yourself. How does implicating Trump in a new set of crimes without absolving him of the existing ones qualify as damage control?
Setting that aside, the second paragraph basically has nothing to do with the rest of this, that's an entirely different claim. Your argument is basically that the CIA and FBI knew about all of this and were in fact involved in it. That the only reason Epstein was eventually arrested was because the Miami Herald made too much noise for them to sweep it under the rug. That may or may not be true, but doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim that Trump told the cops in an attempt to silence Epstein.
There are a bunch of different angles you could come at this, but damage control by Trumps allies doesn't make a bit of sense. Damage control by foreign agents, maybe, although how sacrificing Trump provides any benefit to them I can't see. The only person I see getting any possible benefit in this scenario is the author making the claim and that's mostly just in exposure, literally everyone else involved comes off worse. It exposes Trump as a Russian agent, implicates him just as much if not more in Epstein's crimes, and paints his turning on Epstein as a self serving attempt to save his own skin. Nothing at all about this situation makes things better for Trump.
How would it be damage control? How exactly does claiming Trump was laundering money for Russia (in part because he was relatively speaking broke at the time) without actually denying in any way his close relationship with Epstein do anything positive for Trump? It's not like in this scenario he turned Epstein in out of the goodness of his heart or concern for the victims, it was a calculated attempt to silence him before he spilled his secrets.
I could see a variety of arguments for why this might not be true but "damage control" doesn't make any sense at all. Being the guy that tipped off the cops about Epstein isn't that much of a feather in his cap to offset all the crimes it implicated him in.
Reported view counts are also important for sponsorships as sponsored video payouts are often tied to hitting specific view counts, and even getting sponsorships and their rates are also typically conditional on view counts. So yes, even though it doesn't directly impact ad revenue it still directly impacts total channel revenue for anyone that accepts sponsorships.
All that said, Google caused this entire mess by bundling their view counting in with their telemetry. If they just reported the raw download stats for the streams instead of trying to determine every last detail of who is watching the video (for all that juicy advertising data) this problem wouldn't have happened in the first place.