Ridiculing people who are worried about long term effects of something that has been in use for only a few years is such an HN thing.
There's countless precedent for things once touted as being safe to turn out incredibly damaging. We just don't know the long term effect yet. Please spare me with the "but there's no mechanism for it to do harm!!!!!" the same was said for all the other drugs that ended up causing cancer or malformed babies and were only pulled from the market after decades of "nutjobs" being dismissed for suggesting a link.
The vaccines that people are getting ridiculed about have been administered to more than 5 billion people. If there were any such extremely damaging long term effects, we would have seen some already.
I think most people understand that the physical processes that would result in long term complications would show signs earlier in some individuals and later in others.
> "Stability" is lacking in video editors because none are written in Rust.
And yet, somehow, all the pro editors manage to be fairly stable despite being written in C++ (or maybe obj-c in the case of final cut pro and iMovie)
Maybe you should do some introspection as to why that is, instead of blaming the language used.
PS: blender's NLE is possibly the most stable of the open-source ones and it's written in C. Maybe that's a hint? Maybe the answer is good leadership and high quality contributors?
What does 4+2 GB mean? I tried googling Redmi 4+2 GB but it only returns Redmi 4 from 2017 that has only 2GB of ram. Surely that's not what you're talking about?
A common example that I can give is when you want to take a photo of a document for future reference (or maybe even PDF submission) in a quiet office or room. I can definitely say that the mandatory shutter sounds create a lot of awkward moments.
I had a similar awkwardness when I tried to have a non-audio indicator for something when laptop screen was off.
When I was using my carrying my laptop around public places in town most of the day, before I'd close the laptop lid (which triggered an immediate suspend at some low level), I'd press a hotkey to "secure" the laptop. This locked the screen and started a process to zero various RAM caches, and scrub misc. temp/junk files. (Not that I needed that, but I was figuring out privacy&security at the time.) To indicate to me that it was OK to close the lid and leave, instead of doing a beep that might bother someone in a library or something, I flashed an LED for an instant. The LED available was the white ThinkLight at the top of the LCD, which was bright enough to illuminate the keyboard and nearby workspace.
You might guess how this could appear in a library. Sudden flash, as if from a cameraphone, in someone's peripheral vision, coming from the direction of a guy who is suddenly leaving.
So I disabled that indicator, because it seemed infinitely more risky and harmful than the threat of a spy neutralizing me and using advanced computer forensics on my laptop to recover a fragment of a high-value spam email.
> That moment shouldn't be awkward if you have a legitimate reason for taking that photo.
Think of for example quiet libraries with a bunch of students quietly studying. They do not like other people making noise, however legitimate the reason is.
> you can record a video...
Video recording also has a mandated start/stop sound, FWIW.
I wonder if it's less a single action of taking one photo, but the collective noise of lots of people taking lots of photos.
With film photography people were be restrained with the cost of film and photo development, whereas now there's no restraint and lots of people take lots of photos of the most mundane things. I can imagine the noise and distractions of 'click, click, click' in public spaces, events, gatherings etc. An always on chorus of 'click, click, click,click, click, click,click, click, click'.
The noise is annoying per se, but also: stealthy != illegitimate. For example think of trying to document something abusive going on around you, and being betrayed by "your" tool.
More fundamentally, it's just not a tool's proper place to second-guess if its wielder is doing something illegitimate. You should be technically able to use your general computing device to launch a doomsday weapon if you so desire, even though that's ethically and legally frowned upon.
When wahnfrieden receives ad-free video from YouTube, it is another form of welfare "freeloading". An adblocker is indifferent from a handout except by name.
What are you talking about? The vast majority of people would rather disable their adblocker on YouTube then subscribe and pay $15 a month... How is it a dark pattern for YouTube to suggest the most likely option?
I was referring to Google in general. Youtube is one slice of what they do. And it's also infected with the same perverse and subtle incentives when it comes to advertising.
