Yeah, I think Netflix has like a few thousand movies and a couple thousand TV shows, and some of us here have similarly sized Jellyfin libraries. On the other hand, YouTube has billions of videos. It seems DRM would be a significantly more difficult and costly problem for YouTube.
Worst part with Meta Quest is it seems you have to sign up as a dev and give them a credit card in order to sideload (a.k.a., install stuff on the device you purchased). So, you can shell out hundreds for one of their devices and the device and all your data are belong to Meta. I assume it’s the same deal with these glasses. Zuck off, Zuck.🖕
Agreed, I’d totally buy a Meta Quest as well if they didn’t zuck up all their devices with spyware that can’t be removed.
Just when you thought Ring cameras raised grave privacy concerns for the public, introducing face-mounted cameras and microphones streaming straight into Zuck’s data centers. Good thing it’s shit and probably won’t sell that well, I guess.
Show your support for surveillance capitalism and get yourself a face-mounted camera and microphone.
Well, reading the replies to this post, it became clear to me that the title is provocative, but isn’t accurate. Sure, nerds don’t like ads and generally are annoyed by inflated and unsubstantiated claims, but it’s inaccurate to say that marketing doesn’t work on nerds. Many people who read the title obviously recognized this and came here to set the record straight, hence my reference to Cunnungham’s Law. I’m sure others who originally agreed with the title came around to a different understanding like I did after reading the comments and reflecting. “Hey, maybe I’m not immune to marketing after all.”
Overall, I feel like I’ve been called out on my bullshit in this post and am wiser as a result. Hope others had the same learning experience. Maybe I’m a jagoff as well for being so openly reflective about it.
As OP, I have to admit this post unintentionally leverages Cunningham’s Law as its main marketing tactic, as do many other popular posts on Lemmy. Post something that might sound correct on the surface, but is demonstrably false, and you will get hundreds of nerds clicking on it saying, “that’s bullshit; let me set this fucker straight!” 🤣
Yeah, a study with actual data would beat an opinion piece for sure.
So the corporate sites will be more difficult to access and the sites that pirate the same content will be business as usual. Since teens always ask for their parents’ credit cards to buy embarrassing content legitimately instead of pirating them anonymously, these laws will absolutely stop underage viewing.
The Steam Deck is a perfect example of why the title of this post is nonsense. Ha, I added this post early in the morning yesterday and have been facepalming over the dumb title I wrote ever since.
deleted by creator
True, and having the hubris to think otherwise makes you even less immune.
Fair point. The title should be something more like “Normie Marketing Doesn’t Work in Nerds”.
A website with pricing, extensive documentation, and a download button effectively IS marketing.
“Flying car” is a bullshit term. They are aircraft and must be treated as such.
deleted by creator
I suppose there are benefits to gig work like Instacart in that you get to pick your own schedule, but what is the benefit of driving for Amazon? You’re a contractor, but Amazon picks your hours?
If the state of open source phones are anything to judge by, we will have open source cars at some point, except the foot brake isn’t working yet, so you’ll have to use the hand brake for now. Cars and phones both take a lot of resources to develop, and maybe you’ll be able to “de-Stellantis” your car at some point instead of going fully open source, but judging by the recent steps Google has taken to weaken de-Googling, I’m not sure how long that would last either.
Not really my area of expertise, but this article lays out her perspective on this for anyone who isn’t aware: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-doesnt-need-a-new-gigantic-particle-collider/
TL;DR - Many times the cost of the LHC and unlike the LHC, the gains are likely to be incremental instead of revolutionary. The same funding could do much more good elsewhere.
To your point, agreed that even small, incremental gains for science are more valuable than what we are likely to get from AI.
I have started using Copilot more lately, but I’ve also switched from plastic straws to paper, so I’m good, right?
Pay surveillance capitalists to track you, except with a verified real identity? I’ll pass, thanks, and will stick to directly supporting creators I care about.