My experience is that discrimination in hiring is never openly advocated for obvious reasons. Instead you get what could be called "stochastic discrimination" where there is pressure to "increase diversity" without elaboration on how that should be achieved in the face of a not so diverse pool of qualified candidates.
Watermarking was a problem when Widevine L1 was first introduced. Pirates seem to have found a way to scrub the watermark from their releases. Either that or someone is burning a _lot_ of cash on playback hardware judging from the rate of 4K WEB-DL releases.
It doesn't need to be a lot - just replaced in the same cadence as the latency from initial broadcast to key revocation. Even if it's all in-house in Netflix and the watermark sufficient to identify the specific device key not all releases are made instantly after being made available on the platform, it still has to be downloaded, verified, watermark extracted before the key can be revoked.
If that's just a total of a single day, 365 cheap netflix devices per year certainly isn't out of the question, especially with the number of people involved in the many ripping groups.
Depending on the bit size of a watermark, device-based watermarking should be easy to defeat using a quorum of devices to agree on bit values. It should only take around log2(n) attackers to remove an n-bit watermark.
I'm not super familiar with YouTube terminology, is "YouTube Partner Program" something that applies to anyone who has ads on their YouTube channel? Seems to me something you need to apply to, and also only available in Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States which probably excludes more than 50% of popular channels on YouTube.
It seems to me that YouTube would serve ads on any channel, not just those part of the YouTube Partner Program, but the % revenue share isn't published for non-partners it seems.
Partners are everyone with monetization (revenue sharing) [1]. It's available in many many countries [2]. The countries you are listing are the early access to newer features like superchats, merch store, etc [3]
I'm not basing anything I say here on rumors or hearsay, I'm simply reading the content on Google's own websites regarding this, as I personally have no experience about it.
From the first link:
> I'm not a YouTube partner, so why am I seeing ads on my videos?
> YouTube may also place ads on videos in channels not in the YouTube Partner Program.
Doesn't this mean that YouTube is earning money from ads placed on videos where people don't get anything from the revenue?
I've never quite understood this idea that Cloudflare is an MITM. An MITM is by definition a covert intermediary. Cloudflare is a service provider that's deliberately employed by a site operator. If CF is a MITM then so is AWS, GCP, and every other CDN service provider.
I guess MITM has a specific (adversarial) definition and I've bastardized it. The only cloud load balancers that I use are layer 4, so they're not unwrapping HTTPS for me, but your point is taken.
I've never thought that it had to be covert or even nefarious to be a MITM. It's a man-in-the-middle if it's sitting between two endpoints talking to each other and intercepting the data stream.
For instance, I proxy all of my web traffic in order to be able to filter my HTTPS streams. It's neither covert nor nefarious, but is still a man-in-the-middle. It's just not a man-in-the-middle attack.
In fact the vast majority of algorithms which involve doing computation on indexes beyond increment/decrement are naturally implemented with zero-based indexing. When using ones based indexing you end up having to convert to zero based, do the computation, then convert back to one based.
Another common example of this is circular buffers. Computing the bounded index from an arbitrary index is simply i % c with zero based indexing, but becomes (i-1) % c + 1 with one based indexing.
> Computing the bounded index from an arbitrary index is simply i % c with zero based indexing, but becomes (i-1) % c + 1 with one based indexing.
Arguably, this is because the common definition of modular arithmetic is itself zero-based: “modulo N” maps all integers into the numbers [0,N-1]. It is fully possible to define a “%” operator that instead mapped the integers into the range [1,N], which might be more natural in 1-based languages?
Great, now you've messed up all the other math that uses the modulo operator. The mathematical operators behave the way they do for well established reasons that long predate the invention of computers. It's going to be a tough sell to get everyone to adopt a wholesale refactoring of modulo arithmetic (and likely number theory in general) just for the "convenience" of one based indexing.
I'd be willing to overlook a lot for a new Android phone with dimensions similar to the Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact. The market for small Android phones is extremely thin right now. There are only two phones which can run Android 13 and are less than 145 mm tall, and they're both less than a year away from EoL (Pixel 4a and Pixel 5).
Benefit of doubt; they're likely using it as shorthand for 'equivalent to turboprop style/class engine' as an established feature set to have a drop in alternative to.
lol, love this. Yeah, high bypass turbofan was what I was thinking about, and yes those are "jet" engines. Model airplanes use something called an electric ducted fan or EDF[1], and it has the nice properties in that you can run it over a wide range of speeds if desired. The recent Black Sea MQ-9 incident would, in my opinion, turned out differently if that drone used a shrouded engines for propulsion.
Eh, not really. Most "battery breakthrough!" press releases are about some new exotic chemistry while most mass produced battery improvements in the last 20 years have come from incremental improvements to existing chemistries and better packaging.
Meh, the devil's in the details with a lot of those announcements. A surprising number of them are things like... it will be 50% better 5-10 years from now!
That's actually incremental improvement if you think about it in annual improvement terms.
It is, except for the fact that the future isn't guaranteed, so there could be unforeseen problems with scaling up, and that 50% improvement never gets delivered. As mentioned upthread though, CATL has expertise in that area, and "end of this year" is so a trackable claim, unlike the claims about gallium-based batteries.
As someone with a chronic condition who has had to make many appointments with specialists over the years, 6-12 months is a gross exaggeration. IME the typical wait time to be seen by a specialist in the US is between 2 and 3 months. The worst I've seen is 4 months.
:) I'm glad your experience hasn't been so bad. I've had to wait that long. My partner is a chronic pain specialist and wait times for new patients often exceed 6 months.
