Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jddecker's commentslogin

I played Celeste using Steam Link from my PC over wifi to an Nvidia Shield and it worked good about 99% of the time. Is the tech perfect? No, but it does work great a lot of the time.


How does this work if they are not clearly defined on a map? Usually TFRs are shown on drone maps so you know where you can fly.

If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?


yep. the disconnect you're feeling comes from thinking you're living within the normative state, when in fact you're under the prerogative state:

> The dual state is a model in which the functioning of a state is divided into a normative state, which operates according to set rules and regulations, and a prerogative state, "which exercises unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_state_%28model%29


Is this not very different from Carl Schmitt's idea of Decisionism[0]? (I think his is more fleshed out philosophically and has a more general character)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisionism


I'd argue all top down states are "prerogative"... and "normative" is merely a temporary alignment of expectations and exercised power


Yes. You not knowing whether you are in trouble or not is a feature, not a bug.


This administration is overstepping legal bound left and right. If they want you in trouble, you'll be in trouble. Appeals to law, even if successful, will take too long.


And inversely, if you break the law, and they 'like' you - then you are freed or never even charged in the first place.

Land of the free/saviour of the free world.


Welcome to the Authoritarian States of Sycophancy. Or ASS. As we are referred to around the world.


that is the point - to make you scared to fly your drone, anywhere, anytime. That is among the main differences between democratic society and the rest - a citizen of democratic society knows the extent of his rights, and where he would be crossing the line into violation of law, and that makes the citizen pretty assertive in his rights. That assertiveness isn't compatible with the non-democratic societies (or with authoritarian abuses of power in a [still overall] democratic society).


> If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?

That depends on whether you support Dear Leader.


It sure would be nice of them to do that!

I can't wait to see this tested in court. While IANAL the EFF sure has lawyers and their argument seems petty sound.

Really this just seems like a waste of government money. They can shoot down drones and arrest people but those people will get court cases and they'll win and the gov will (and has) have you pay out fines. I'm not a fan of paying people to harass others...


> I can't wait to see this tested in court.

Today, yes, but if the fascist cancer is around for too long, more and more judges will be its appointed tools.


I don’t think they really care about paying out fines, that would be a cost of doing business. The point is to make sure that footage like the Pretti execution can never happen again, because that’s what tanks their support. If they have to pay out a bunch of fines to get that assurance, so what? The fines are paid by our tax dollars anyway, it’s not like they’re actually harmed or deterred by them.


The binaries they offer are complied using PyInstaller, which can give false positives in anti virus software.


Google has been anti yt-dlp before it was forked. They also have rules that carve out tools like this from their extension store and at Android, except enforcement is lacking sometimes.

Google is terrified of users having access users control to their video content.


yt-dlp breaks YouTube’s DRM. They could easily get the repo removed under the DMCA. They don’t.


IIRC the old yt-dlp was removed at one point for exactly that.


Google's already tried taking down Invidious. If they could use the DMCA for it, I believe they would. Notable, Invidious is still up, and there were fun articles from the response

https://www.vice.com/en/article/youtube-tells-open-source-pr...


Weirdly enough, Google's never actually made a public statement that YouTube "has DRM". If they did, it would immediately give Kevin McLeod the biggest copyleft trolling opportunity in history, because all Creative Commons licenses specifically forbid using DRM on the resulting work.

The only reason why we even know YouTube "has DRM" is because third parties have been able to plausibly allege DMCA 1201 circumvention claims against yt-dlp regarding a nebulously named "rolling cipher". These are not actual court findings of fact, just that you can say this in a legal filing and not immediately get your case thrown out on summary judgment. Which is a really low bar. Whether or not the rolling cipher actually qualifies as DRM is still an open question.

The way DMCA 1201 is written, basically anything intended to function as copy protection is considered DRM under the law. Like, those really annoying no-right-click scripts people used to put on sites probably could be argued to be DRM under DMCA 1201. However, in this case, there's a disconnect between the people offering the DRM (who don't actually claim it's DRM) and the people using it as DRM.


Google has consistently maintained in legal proceedings and terms of service that its technical measures, specifically its "rolling cipher" and signature mechanisms, constitute technological protection measures under the DMCA.

The most prominent public declaration of this stance occurred during the legal battle over youtube-dl (basically the ancesor of yt-dlp). While the RIAA initiated the initial 2020 DMCA takedown, Google's own technical implementation of the "rolling cipher" was the core of the argument.


it'll just cause a lot more people to become aware of it and cause mirrors to pop up everywhere.


RIAA already tried to take down the Github repo for youtube-dl (basically the original yt-dlp was forked from) back in October 2020. But outcry from among others EFF got it reinstated just one month later. Google is probably on the fence about this because they saw how it went last time. The slow killing of adblockers in Chrome seems to be something they are getting away with, so maybe that will make them bolder once things have moved along far enough that there's no way back.


Why would a browser(be designed to) care about this?


Because people download viruses from the internet all the time? "Common sense antivirus" might work fine if you're technically inclined, but that's not the case for everyone.


The growing prevalence of so-called "supply-chain attacks" (a bad name because it implies a commercial relationship that doesn't usually exist) shows that "common sense antivirus" isn't working so well even among the technically inclined.


Because Google owns Youtube.


To protect the normies from harmful malware… not on their approved vendor list.


it's to protect shareholder value.


Because Google does no evol.


You could also ask why Android care about banning side loading to "prevent scams and spyware", and I honestly don't have an answer at all.


One thing I like about Android Quick Send is that you can generate a QR code, that the other person scans, and it'll send the file to them. I use it so rarely, and most people I know are the same, so usually it's just turned off and I find a lot of other Android users are the same.


The OpenSSH SSH client has been included in Windows as default since 2018, so you don't even need WSL to use it anymore.

Just open a terminal and type ssh just like you would in Linux.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: