andrewla

I've never really dug into it but this does explain a lot of the strange and flakey behavior that I've seen with switches purporting to offer HDMI-CEC support. All I really want is auto-input switching and being able to control the volume through the device.

It doesn't seem like it should be so hard, but it has broken and fixed itself so many times that I really don't know what I should be looking for.

Agreed that the fact that the capability exists is bad.

That said, open networks have become a bit of a rarity; the only ones I can see are captive portal networks, and none of those from my home.

Yes, but you can choose your adventure here. Better than having to replace the entire TV if you find one that doesn't do what you want.

Not to mention that technology moves forward and you can replace these if new models come out that have better features or are more aligned with your privacy preferences.

This seems excessive. Easier to disconnect it from the internet completely, and have it boot to HDMI1, hook up an external HDMI-CEC switch, and never think about it again.

With "Hotel Mode" you can make this effectively permanent and never see LG's UI again unless you want it.

Then just connect whatever HDMI-based box you want (Roku, Apple TV, Plex, Android, whatever) and use that for the content.

The end state of every garbage collected language is a suite of tools to prevent garbage collection at all costs.

I think we can learn something here.

Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_letter

The actual memo:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/10/26/introducing-a-vo...

Music is possible because 12 log2 3 is almost equal to 19.

So we just kinda pretend that it exactly equals 19.

Also as phone bans start up in various schools there are often carveouts for mp3 players. A lot of summer camps too that have no-device policies allow non-internet-connected music players as well. The market both on the super low end and the high end is looking pretty strong. Hardest aspect, from my perspective, is gaining access to downloadable music when most consumption has moved to streaming.

It's funny because it's such a treadmill situation! Yes, I guess I'm valuable to advertisers because I'm a high-value target because I paid to not see ads. But surely there's a dollar amount there! A dollar amount of how much I am worth to advertisers, and presumably I can pay them that directly.

But then if I pay them for really no ads, like for realzies, then ... I'm an even more valuable target! And there's a dollar value for that.

So I pay them for really no ads, pinkie swear this time, then ... I'm an even more valuable target! And there's a dollar value for that.

I cannot possibly be of infinite value to these companies.

I mean, I am also an iPhone fan, but our phones stopped being "ours", in the sense that this page warns about, approximately 6,679 days ago.

Drugs and alcohol, for sure, I can see it. They are a disproportionate drain on the public health apparatus compared to individuals that live a healthy lifestyle. Use of drugs, alcohol, driving motorcycles, eating too much fatty food, participating in dangerous sports, all have a public health components.

I'm not seeing it for gambling. How is that expensive for anyone but the person doing the gambling?

> You have far less agency than you think you do

I guess it's possible, but you have no idea how much agency I think I have.

To focus on one example you give, "Society itself is a removed of agency. Animals can do whatever they want, humans are constrained socially in what we're allowed to do." -- this is a clear misunderstanding of what agency is, or at least how I am using it. You CAN do anything you are physically capable of doing, even in violation of society's rules. Complete agency! People desire things that are only obtainable through conformance with society's rules, or, more sociopathically, only obtainable through the appearance of conformance with society's rules. That society survives is in effect dependent on this fragile web of incentives and expectations and social consequences and martial consequences

You can choose not to drink Coke! That people statistically choose to drink Coke does not mean that people lack agency. If you think the reason people drink Coke is because TV tells you to, then I encourage you to create your own beverage and advertise the shit out it and then get super rich!

The problem is that there is a feeling that you have written out here: that manipulation of people's desires is somehow mechanistic or predictable.

That you can follow some script and get people to do something. But it only appears that way because you are looking at the survivors of the vicious evolution, red in tooth and branding. All the ads in the world didn't make Crystal Pepsi a winner (or frankly make Pepsi a winner). The combination of factors that makes one thing successful and another not cannot be easily replicated or copied from one domain to another or even within one domain.

If there were a mechanism then someone would be using it; everyone would be using it; and there would be no winners and everyone would be a winner. It's a self-contradictory view that doesn't match reality in any way.

I was going to upvote this comment but changed my mind because I think although we both see gambling ads as a scourge, we could not be more far apart in our reasons.

I could give two shits about the "public health crisis". People have agency, they can choose what to do with their lives and their money and I'm okay with the reaping and sowing lining up together.

I'm concerned in that I find the focus on gambling presented so prominently to be offensive, period. That is, I am offended. This is Just Wrong. I enjoy watching (some) sports, I appreciate the drama, I love the moments of superhuman feats and the balance of luck and skill and strategy and tactics and grand strategy and analysis and all of the things that it presents.

A friendly wager is fine, going by a sports book is fine once in a while. Even betting on an outcome on an online sports book is fine. It is a vice, sure, but who among us does not enjoy stepping outside the bounds of "proper" behavior. But this pervasive push to treat it as a normal and expected and typical thing offends me. It is a vice, and it should be done with the appropriate amount of shame and friction that we tolerate of almost all vices. It should not be normalized and it should not be glorified.

There's a bit of an artistic treadmill here; I don't know if there's a name for it.

For ages, making painting realistic was the gold standard. An assumed skill for an artist was producing photorealistic art, with composition and light and all of those other characteristics being secondary (though they most likely affected how the art was perceived).

When photography appeared, the ability to render a photorealistic scene was no longer the sole domain of painters; and in fact much of art at that time shifted towards more abstraction.

So too with music and audio; technical perfection was once a prerequisite skill for a musicisian, and now is no longer primary because it can be papered over in the editing booth.

The article doesn't seem to say this specifically, but my take at defining "gridification", in the sense of "why is this term in particular used to refer to the thing they are talking about". The article says "Gridification is when a human performance is treated as error in need of correction and turned into a machine-perfect representation of itself" but they could have used "blorficoration" for this; why "grid"?

Griddification is trying to take each note and align it to a grid, the two axes being time and pitch. All notes (spoken or sung or struck) start aligned and are tonally compatible. In that sense it is like the grid you see on a piano roll describing music. Basically a de-jittered midi-style reduction of the actual music being player.

Because putting people in jail costs the state money. Frivolous shakedowns of giant corporations gets the state billions of dollars.

And, frankly, about shaking down a large company for a whole buncha cash. We could all of us use $25B, and Meta has all this money lying around that's not helping the good people in the Land of Enchantment.

I believe it is colloquial precedent rather than legal precedent that the parent is referring to.

In some ways this makes Jonathan Blow's talk on the Bronze Age Collapse [1] even more poignant.

There was a point where I was working heavily with Nix and increasingly frustrated with its arcane syntax and way of doing things that made a conceptually extremely simple system into one of almost nightmarish complexity; juggling strange default and environment variables and seemingly random command line tooling. Inscrutable documentation that absolutely refused to define very basic concepts but went into insane detail on irrelevant details.

I had numerous ideas around fixing this and contributing to the project, and made some small contributions.

But now... Claude lets me just work around this by figuring out how to make it work. So now I don't understand and don't have to understand. I still look at the generated flakes, etc., when I'm dealing with it, but I'm rapidly losing the motivation to do that if things are just working.

I think this is bad but for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Except to say that having complex tools with simple interfaces (Claude) is risky.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25788317

The main place where ICE has removed oversight has been when they have detained people; they don't document clearly whether the detention was for immigration or suspected immigration offenses or more general obstruction offenses. After the fact, they split these claims, saying that all detentions not resulting in immigration enforcement were just "obstruction" all along. So we have no idea how often they are detaining people because they think that they are illegal, but, on finding out that they are legally present or citizens, claim that it was obstruction all along.

I think we're in agreement here that the administration has pushed to limit accountability and auditing, and ICE and ERO and DHS and Border Control have all been using this to make themselves look like they are much more well-intentioned than they likely are. Where we differ is that you think they are successful at this, that they are portrayed as competent and earnest despite the reality. Whereas I see that they have been vilified to an almost insane degree in almost every media outlet that I have exposure to.

But the thing that they can't lie about, that they can't cover up, is deportations, because these are big news and everyone knows it, and false and improper deportations are a huge deal and have been every time they have surfaced. That you think there are more cases that have not been chased down by lawyers hungering for a lawsuit and NGOs champing at the bit to try to bring these people forward is disconnected from reality to a degree that I can't comprehend.

The crux of my point is that things are not as bad as the OP is pretending they are. To a literally insane degree.

Any process has some level of mistakes; ICE is operating at a level of mistakes that is remarkably _LOW_ given the complexity of the issues it is facing.

The level is LOW, not high.

If institutional malice is to blame, then why did we only get a bad outcome a dozen times out of the ~11,000 times that they've encountered the situation (minors detained with illegal immigrant parents)?

If ICE agents are all SS officers determined to deport anyone with an accent or the wrong color skin, including citizens, why has this only happened ONE TIME! ONE TIME! ONE TIME! Out of the literally nearly a million deportations. ONE SINGLE TIME.

What are we even talking about here?

They were deported because their parents were deported and they accompanied them.

In most cases where this occurs this is the parents' preference (this is also the official DHS policy). In several cases (propublica says about a dozen out of the approximately 11,000 citizen children detained during deportation proceedings against their parents) it has been disputed that this was the preference.

Whether this is administrative error or individual malice or institutional malice is unknown. Even in the worst case this does not seem to be a policy since it has occurred in a tiny minority of the total cases.

In all of these cases, the children are free to reenter the country and remain; they are citizens. This is obviously not ideal; there are various lawsuits in progress to compensate the families for the cost and trauma of the removal. But this is not a widespread campaign to kick out citizen children of illegal immigrants.

Read my first reply again and tell me who is nitpicking.

Don't fall into the conspiracy theory trap. ICE can be bad even if they aren't demonic agents of evil. When you believe dramatic but untrue and easily disproven things your world view is going to continue to disconnect from reality.

The first and third cases were not deportations. They were bogus obstruction detentions.

"how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name?" -- part of the complexity of the case, as I note, is that he did in fact enter illegally, smuggled across the border. He did not have to enter illegally; he could have simply presented his passport at any border crossing (or, lacking a passport, an affadavit), but nonetheless he did.

The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.

I agree that American citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship and agree that they should not be required to present papers to prove citizenship.

But you are describing a world that does not exist. No US citizens are being deported mistakenly (Garcia being the lone exception). Notably, this has not always been the case -- under previous administrations there have been numerous cases of citizens being deported, but in the Trump administrations this has not been the case (with the exception of Garcia). We are not living in a nightmarish dystopia.

The situation under which citizens have been detained have always been claimed to be for obstruction. I am not aware of a single case where an individual was detained for immigration charges who was not specifically targeted for enforcement, although since ICE is not public about this (and they cannot be in order to protect the accused) it is hard to say for sure.

The link recounts one case, the one I mentioned, Garcia, and the circumstances around his deportation are complex at best. No question that ICE was mistaken on the facts, but the situation was complex -- he had crossed the border into the US illegally; he did have a Mexican passport with a different spelling of his name. I am not aware of any others and the propublica does not cite any others. Please give names if you are aware of any.

My claim was that you mischaracterized the propublica article and I stand by it. You claimed that US citizens were being detained on fake immigration charges and this is not the case (Garcia was a mistake but the charges were not fake, they were just incorrect). You claimed that US citizens have been deported, and the article only provided a single example, which does not support the claim of "people", that being the plural of "person".

Characterizing the propublica pieces as "fake immigration charges" is pretty misleading. All of their arrests of non-illegal-immigrants has been for (bogus) charges unrelated to immigration, usually some variant of "obstruction".

"Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization. Aside from minor children of deported parents, the only case where an American citizen was deported was Brian Morales Garcia.

There are a mix of incentives here that makes it difficult to unwind. This whole article reads like an ad for the services of this guy's company: 'First, when it comes to assessing tools based on frontier lab models, “I would always get an external entity to help with that,” McGraw says.'

And I think we generally recognize that rogue AI agents are a form of backdoor bragging -- "our agents are so powerful that they hacked an outside system. Did I mention how powerful our agents are? They are quite powerful. So powerful they hacked an outside system".

But Mistral never hacked anything. Yeah, neither did my toaster.

Pool together with some friends and buy an H200 or two to run unquantized open source models with abliteration/heretic transformations.

You need to be able to use these models for the real world and not for some imaginary world where everything is safe and nice and happy all the time, while at the same time intensely surveilled in the name of CYA and the latest panic about whether speech THAT ISN'T EVEN BETWEEN TWO PARTIES is considered "wrong".

I'm a free speech fan that acknowledges there are lots of boundaries of free speech (fraud, perjury, blackmail, defamation), but the one thing that all of the boundaries have in common is that a second party must be involved for them to make any sense at all.

Maybe the courts will uphold this, maybe they won't, but don't take the risk!

No, it's just that they're in Australia.