Viral 'I'm not a cat' filter is decades-old software(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Viral 'I'm not a cat' filter is decades-old software
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56010156
300 comments
> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost.
This was actually central to the DOJ antitrust case against Microsoft. As part of the settlement, Microsoft had to agree to allow OEMs to keep installing crapware [1].
It's things like this that make me a little nervous when people say that going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer.
[1] https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1274453172665253890
This was actually central to the DOJ antitrust case against Microsoft. As part of the settlement, Microsoft had to agree to allow OEMs to keep installing crapware [1].
It's things like this that make me a little nervous when people say that going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer.
[1] https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1274453172665253890
If I had to guess (without reading the case specifically), it's probably because Microsoft screwed up by forcing OEMs to not install netscape in order to crush them.
It's hard to differentiate 'crapware' from competition, particularly given the context where Microsoft had just leveraged their power over OEMs to crush a competitor.
This still sucks though, a better outcome for users would have been Microsoft being able to require the machines to sell with a clean OS and then allowing OEMs to install software for the user at their request (rather than the OEMs being able to bundle crap for kickbacks).
Somewhat related, apparently the netscape guys went to Redmond and hung up signs around Microsoft's campus mocking them for ignoring the internet. Legend has it Gates saw these and pivoted teams to IE with a focus on crushing Netscape.
Startup talk often discusses how most startups fail not due to competition, but because of internal collapse. Big companies can't compete, innovator's dilemma, etc. There's a lot of truth to that but this is a counter example (and others exist too).
Wildly stupid to antagonize the elephant that's focused on other things to direct all of their resources to destroying you.
It's hard to differentiate 'crapware' from competition, particularly given the context where Microsoft had just leveraged their power over OEMs to crush a competitor.
This still sucks though, a better outcome for users would have been Microsoft being able to require the machines to sell with a clean OS and then allowing OEMs to install software for the user at their request (rather than the OEMs being able to bundle crap for kickbacks).
Somewhat related, apparently the netscape guys went to Redmond and hung up signs around Microsoft's campus mocking them for ignoring the internet. Legend has it Gates saw these and pivoted teams to IE with a focus on crushing Netscape.
Startup talk often discusses how most startups fail not due to competition, but because of internal collapse. Big companies can't compete, innovator's dilemma, etc. There's a lot of truth to that but this is a counter example (and others exist too).
Wildly stupid to antagonize the elephant that's focused on other things to direct all of their resources to destroying you.
I always enjoyed the cake tradition: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/06/the-c...
> it's probably because Microsoft screwed up by forcing OEMs to not install netscape in order to crush them.
The matter predated the IE / Netscape battle.
The OEMs wanted the ability to yield money off of the desktop for the systems they sell and had been fighting with Microsoft for years to be able to place crap onto Windows when it boots up. The system makers saw dollar signs in being able to sell placement to AOL dial-up and so on. Microsoft used their position to try to keep them from doing that, fearing an inability to control quality for their own product from the first moment the end user begins their experience.
The matter predated the IE / Netscape battle.
The OEMs wanted the ability to yield money off of the desktop for the systems they sell and had been fighting with Microsoft for years to be able to place crap onto Windows when it boots up. The system makers saw dollar signs in being able to sell placement to AOL dial-up and so on. Microsoft used their position to try to keep them from doing that, fearing an inability to control quality for their own product from the first moment the end user begins their experience.
This seems revisionist, and while Sinofsky obviously has some authority on the subject, he likely also has a bias.
The antitrust case was brought by the states because Microsoft's behavior "was not in the public interest." As far as I know, it wasn't just 1 thing. It was the exclusionary licensing (OEMs were forced to pay an "MS Tax" even when they shipped a Linux computer), it was the bundling of IE, and it was their manipulation of their APIs to favor their software.
Plus there was the EU antitrust case that had nothing to do with OEMs.
It's also worth noting that Microsoft defense was...awful? They falsified evidence, they were belligerent/petty. Gates was a particular train wreck (1)
(1) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-s...
The antitrust case was brought by the states because Microsoft's behavior "was not in the public interest." As far as I know, it wasn't just 1 thing. It was the exclusionary licensing (OEMs were forced to pay an "MS Tax" even when they shipped a Linux computer), it was the bundling of IE, and it was their manipulation of their APIs to favor their software.
Plus there was the EU antitrust case that had nothing to do with OEMs.
It's also worth noting that Microsoft defense was...awful? They falsified evidence, they were belligerent/petty. Gates was a particular train wreck (1)
(1) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-s...
It's a bit naive to think that Microsoft's argument there wasn't just them grasping at straws at any attempt to avoid anti-trust regulation. History has shown that Microsoft themselves would happily jump at the chance to stuff their own pockets by pre-installing crapware on your computer, as evidenced by all the junk and ads on even fresh installs of modern Windows. Remember the Candy Crush auto-install debacle? https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-steer-clear-of-windows-...
The Candy Crush thing happened two decades after the Microsoft antitrust case (the suit was filed in 1998 and settled in 2002). It's dumb, but it would be a stretch to argue that Microsoft would have done the same thing if they had been allowed to control what shipped with Windows for the previous 20 years.
Back in the day, if you bought Windows directly from Microsoft, you'd get a pretty clean OS without too much bloat. I guess there were things like Minesweeper and Solitaire -- but those were apparently added to help people become proficient at using a mouse back when this was novel.
Back in the day, if you bought Windows directly from Microsoft, you'd get a pretty clean OS without too much bloat. I guess there were things like Minesweeper and Solitaire -- but those were apparently added to help people become proficient at using a mouse back when this was novel.
Indeed. I bought a Lenovo laptop from the online Microsoft store in early 2011 (or late 2010).
One if the offered extras was “Microsoft signature” optimized install that sounded like it came with extra stuff. As I was going to install Linux anyway, I declined.
Then I received the laptop which somehow did have “signature” set-up, so I looked into it: it was basically just pristine windows setup without crapware; Apparently, that’s the only thing they were selling at the time, but were welling to take extra money from people who didn’t want crapware.
One if the offered extras was “Microsoft signature” optimized install that sounded like it came with extra stuff. As I was going to install Linux anyway, I declined.
Then I received the laptop which somehow did have “signature” set-up, so I looked into it: it was basically just pristine windows setup without crapware; Apparently, that’s the only thing they were selling at the time, but were welling to take extra money from people who didn’t want crapware.
I somehow remember 'clean installs' being an option with retail Microsoft stores; In fact at one point I think it was the norm.
I mean, what Microsoft did pales in comparison to Apple's standard business model. How many third party apps have been driven out of business by Apple's preferred first party copy? We still cannot run anything but Safari (or an older, less-featured, reskinned Safari) on iOS.
Anti-trust is a joke and holding Microsoft accountable for 1/10th of today's standard operating procedure was ridiculous.
Anti-trust is a joke and holding Microsoft accountable for 1/10th of today's standard operating procedure was ridiculous.
Anti-trust is only a joke in the sense that it doesn't get wielded enough. No more of these enormous companies forming unaccountable pseudo-governments of their own. Break them up and let the fragments enliven the market with their revitalized sense of competition. Then, when a victor emerges fat and complacent, break them up again and begin the cycle anew.
Apple's market share also pales in comparison with Microsoft's.
I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell.
That's not to say Apple's conduct isn't egregious, but the context isn't the same either.
I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell.
That's not to say Apple's conduct isn't egregious, but the context isn't the same either.
> I'm pretty sure Apple never made anyone selling an iPhone pay them for an iOS license on all the phones they sell.
That's a wildly different situation. Of course Microsoft charges hardware vendors for Windows licenses - we have to pay for them too! Windows is Microsoft's main product - should they be giving away licenses to vendors?!? (I'm ignoring the underlying issue of sell vs produce here, because it's such a clear fallacy it's not even worth explaining)
That's a wildly different situation. Of course Microsoft charges hardware vendors for Windows licenses - we have to pay for them too! Windows is Microsoft's main product - should they be giving away licenses to vendors?!? (I'm ignoring the underlying issue of sell vs produce here, because it's such a clear fallacy it's not even worth explaining)
Microsoft was charging vendors for Windows licenses per computer; even computers that were sold without Windows.
Huh, I've never heard of that...
It was a sizable part of the big Microsoft anti-trust case. And also an earlier case except for MS-DOS instead of Windows.
Matt Stoller’s “Big” includes an interesting (though flawed) history of how anti-monopoly efforts have often been sacrificed for the good of the consumer. Which arguably was a short-term good.
Yes, a bunch of DOJ lawyers who barely know tech will decide the good of tech.
> going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer.
I believe in US antitrust law, better for the customer => lower prices. And installing crapware on laptops means lower prices.
The theory would be that if anyone actually wanted crapware-free laptops, there's nothing stopping any manufacturer from selling them. It's a problem for a market. I think it would be a bad idea to let courts decide what "product quality" is for something like that
I believe in US antitrust law, better for the customer => lower prices. And installing crapware on laptops means lower prices.
The theory would be that if anyone actually wanted crapware-free laptops, there's nothing stopping any manufacturer from selling them. It's a problem for a market. I think it would be a bad idea to let courts decide what "product quality" is for something like that
Microsoft installs plenty of their own crapware, so even if they had won that part of the lawsuit, our computers would still be full of it.
And I don't think antitrust is supposed to always benefit the consumers, it seems more designed to help the market through competition. But more competition means less compatibility, so we'd just end up with 20 shitty walled-gardens of services instead of 3 good ones. What we need it competition and cooperation, but the market was simply not designed to allow that.
Especially Google's business model of giving away free services to grow their monopoly, then making money off of their data, would not be able to survive. That sounds like a benefit on paper, but most people would consider not getting free Google services a huge problem.
That being said, I still support it. I don't care about the short-term slight negative impacts if it means we rid ourselves of these invasive companies and get at least some semblance of control over our tech.
And I don't think antitrust is supposed to always benefit the consumers, it seems more designed to help the market through competition. But more competition means less compatibility, so we'd just end up with 20 shitty walled-gardens of services instead of 3 good ones. What we need it competition and cooperation, but the market was simply not designed to allow that.
Especially Google's business model of giving away free services to grow their monopoly, then making money off of their data, would not be able to survive. That sounds like a benefit on paper, but most people would consider not getting free Google services a huge problem.
That being said, I still support it. I don't care about the short-term slight negative impacts if it means we rid ourselves of these invasive companies and get at least some semblance of control over our tech.
> It's things like this that make me a little suspicious when people say that going after big tech with antitrust law will necessarily be good for the consumer.
This is what we see coming from a mile away when people (usually user-hostile devs) clamor for the App Store to be broken up etc.
This is what we see coming from a mile away when people (usually user-hostile devs) clamor for the App Store to be broken up etc.
[deleted]
> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost.
One of the greatest losses from the retail Microsoft Store shutdown was the loss of Microsoft's "Signature Edition" PC program. They only sold in their Stores PCs with clean Windows installs, which they labeled "Signature Edition". Many of the OEMS participated (Dell, Lenovo, others), and generally when you could directly compare Signature Edition models to their regular direct from the OEM counterparts (which the companies model naming/numbering schemes often intentionally tried to make hard to do) it was often about a $50 premium over the "full of junk installed" PC (showing about how much all that bloatware is valuable to the OEMs if it subsidizes machines by about $50).
For a brief period it even looked like other retailers might adopt Signature Edition sales and you could even walk into a Staples or a Best Buy and find sales people that could source Signature Edition machines, for the people that still liked to try to deal shop between multiple retail stores.
I miss being able to give the advice "buy whatever computer you want from Microsoft Store, or if you go to Staples/Best Buy keep asking sales people until you meet the person that knows what Signature Edition means and you generally won't have any problems with the machine".
Now the advice is back to "buy a Surface from Microsoft or be prepared to spend a couple hours using the Windows Fresh Start tool from Microsoft first".
One of the greatest losses from the retail Microsoft Store shutdown was the loss of Microsoft's "Signature Edition" PC program. They only sold in their Stores PCs with clean Windows installs, which they labeled "Signature Edition". Many of the OEMS participated (Dell, Lenovo, others), and generally when you could directly compare Signature Edition models to their regular direct from the OEM counterparts (which the companies model naming/numbering schemes often intentionally tried to make hard to do) it was often about a $50 premium over the "full of junk installed" PC (showing about how much all that bloatware is valuable to the OEMs if it subsidizes machines by about $50).
For a brief period it even looked like other retailers might adopt Signature Edition sales and you could even walk into a Staples or a Best Buy and find sales people that could source Signature Edition machines, for the people that still liked to try to deal shop between multiple retail stores.
I miss being able to give the advice "buy whatever computer you want from Microsoft Store, or if you go to Staples/Best Buy keep asking sales people until you meet the person that knows what Signature Edition means and you generally won't have any problems with the machine".
Now the advice is back to "buy a Surface from Microsoft or be prepared to spend a couple hours using the Windows Fresh Start tool from Microsoft first".
The best thing about Windows now is that once you've registered your machine via their online tool, reregistering after a clean install is the click of a button.
They have a windows 10 builder tool that downloads the ISO and burns it to USB or DVD. So there's not much stopping a customer from registering and then doing a crapware-free clean install. The downside (besides needing the skill and time to do it) is you'll lose any baked in freeware but the line between freeware, trialware and crapware is so thin now I'm not sure that's a concern.
Finally you can rein in the data collection and remove much of the microsoft freeware by using https://old.reddit.com/r/tronscript.
They have a windows 10 builder tool that downloads the ISO and burns it to USB or DVD. So there's not much stopping a customer from registering and then doing a crapware-free clean install. The downside (besides needing the skill and time to do it) is you'll lose any baked in freeware but the line between freeware, trialware and crapware is so thin now I'm not sure that's a concern.
Finally you can rein in the data collection and remove much of the microsoft freeware by using https://old.reddit.com/r/tronscript.
> The best thing about Windows now is that once you've registered your machine via their online tool, reregistering after a clean install is the click of a button.
> They have a windows 10 builder tool that downloads the ISO and burns it to USB or DVD. So there's not much stopping a customer from registering and then doing a crapware-free clean install. The downside (besides needing the skill and time to do it) is you'll lose any baked in freeware but the line between freeware, trialware and crapware is so thin now I'm not sure that's a concern.
And the best thing about your computer is that it's so complicated that a determined manufacturer like Lenovo can hide their crapware installers in, say, the UEFI. Which will then automatically install them on a fresh OS install.
You make the mistake of thinking that you own your computer. You do not.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10039870
> They have a windows 10 builder tool that downloads the ISO and burns it to USB or DVD. So there's not much stopping a customer from registering and then doing a crapware-free clean install. The downside (besides needing the skill and time to do it) is you'll lose any baked in freeware but the line between freeware, trialware and crapware is so thin now I'm not sure that's a concern.
And the best thing about your computer is that it's so complicated that a determined manufacturer like Lenovo can hide their crapware installers in, say, the UEFI. Which will then automatically install them on a fresh OS install.
You make the mistake of thinking that you own your computer. You do not.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10039870
I found this out with my ASUS motherboard on my desktop. There's a UEFI option which bootstraps an automatic installation of their own software called Armory Crate which then invokes itself to install a load of "junk".
My last 3 laptops were Asus, HP and Acer, none of them had that UEFI crap.
My last 3 desktops were the ones I assembled myself from components, desktop motherboard manufacturers don't do that.
I think your example is a rare exception, not a rule.
My last 3 desktops were the ones I assembled myself from components, desktop motherboard manufacturers don't do that.
I think your example is a rare exception, not a rule.
Desktop motherboard manufacturers definitely do it, and they have FAQs of how to disable it: https://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1043788/
Very interesting. I guess I was lucky with Gigabyte last time.
Does anyone maintain a list of crapware-infested motherboards customers should avoid?
Does anyone maintain a list of crapware-infested motherboards customers should avoid?
[deleted]
Have you tried Linux?
1. The post I was replying to was about how Windows was great.
2. Do you actually run linux/bsd as your only desktop operating system, with no binary blob drivers? Because otherwise, you still don't own your computer.
2. Do you actually run linux/bsd as your only desktop operating system, with no binary blob drivers? Because otherwise, you still don't own your computer.
> 1. The post I was replying to was about how Windows was great.
Ah sorry, I got lost in the the thread hierarchy.
> 2. Do you actually run linux/bsd as your only desktop operating system, with no binary blob drivers? Because otherwise, you still don't own your computer.
Yes, I do. I guess other than CPU microcode and other such stuffs that I can't reasonably get around.
Ah sorry, I got lost in the the thread hierarchy.
> 2. Do you actually run linux/bsd as your only desktop operating system, with no binary blob drivers? Because otherwise, you still don't own your computer.
Yes, I do. I guess other than CPU microcode and other such stuffs that I can't reasonably get around.
Please don't misunderstand my post starting "the best thing about Windows..." as an overall endorsement of Windows. I didn't mean it to be read that way. I was just saying it's more convenient to have a clean install, although as you pointed out UEFI shenanigans can counteract that, so thank you for that.
>2. Do you actually run linux/bsd as your only desktop operating system, with no binary blob drivers? Because otherwise, you still don't own your computer.
I ran openbsd for decades, bought every release dvd, a few t-shirts and did my best to own my hardware. The only reason I don't run it now is their networking stack can't sustain gigabit speeds on the firewall hardware I use. Freebsd can't either, but it gets much closer. More than double the performance, actually. At least for me, it'll have to do.
>2. Do you actually run linux/bsd as your only desktop operating system, with no binary blob drivers? Because otherwise, you still don't own your computer.
I ran openbsd for decades, bought every release dvd, a few t-shirts and did my best to own my hardware. The only reason I don't run it now is their networking stack can't sustain gigabit speeds on the firewall hardware I use. Freebsd can't either, but it gets much closer. More than double the performance, actually. At least for me, it'll have to do.
I'm not the person you replied to, but to answer your second question myself, yes, I do. I have four desktop PCs (one for each of my family members including myself), a netbook, and a custom built router in my house. All run Linux except the router, which runs a flavor of BSD. The Linux computers use AMD graphics with the open source AMDGPU driver. No Windows PCs[0], no blob drivers. Works quite well in practice.
[0]: My work laptop runs Windows 10, because they issued it, administer it, and own it. I'm required to use their software baseline for working.
[0]: My work laptop runs Windows 10, because they issued it, administer it, and own it. I'm required to use their software baseline for working.
I'm not a free software zelot or anything, but I do this on my desktop and its not too difficult. As far as I can tell they're aren't any binary blob drivers to install anyway and the standard linux drivers work great.
Nice, I never heard about Fresh Start Tool: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/give-your-pc-a-f...
Would I miss the updated drivers from Dell or other vendor?
Would I miss the updated drivers from Dell or other vendor?
WHQL standards _should_ mean that for any PC purchase today (and many in the last decade or so) Windows Update will always have the most up-to-date "basic driver" on its servers.
There's some controversy (linked elsewhere in this thread) that those basic drivers are allowed by Microsoft to advertise their "full bloat" versions in notifications and launch time popups. The flipside to that controversy is that if you want the "full bloat" versions (such as the Geforce Experience if you are a game player), that makes it easy to acquire them as it is general a case of go through the notifications and popups on first launch, from what I've seen.
There's some controversy (linked elsewhere in this thread) that those basic drivers are allowed by Microsoft to advertise their "full bloat" versions in notifications and launch time popups. The flipside to that controversy is that if you want the "full bloat" versions (such as the Geforce Experience if you are a game player), that makes it easy to acquire them as it is general a case of go through the notifications and popups on first launch, from what I've seen.
I don’t believe you would, drivers come in via windows update in modern windows. You should at worst miss cutting edge versions made available on the manufacturers website prior to arriving on windows update.
My Dell periodically scans for drivers and bios updates, and asks me to update them if a newer version is available.
It seems that Microsoft learned that advertising (and crapware pre-installs) is so profitable, they just bake it right into the Start menu as of Windows 10. Oh and let's add telemetry as well.
Telemetry in Windows has been out of the box since Windows XP. Whether you are correct or not to be antagonistic about it, that ship sailed a long time before Windows 10 and current HN hysteria about it is almost funny (especially given how often articles about telemetry driven development and A/B testing get upvoted on HN when a startup is doing it).
You can turn off the advertising ("Suggestions") and as long as the bundled "crapware" remains UWP sandboxed, it is a far cry from most of what the OEMs have been accused of.
You can turn off the advertising ("Suggestions") and as long as the bundled "crapware" remains UWP sandboxed, it is a far cry from most of what the OEMs have been accused of.
Unfortunately many of the driver packages Microsoft itself distributes come with the worst bloatware imaginable.
Quality control on Microsofts driver database is really poor.
Quality control on Microsofts driver database is really poor.
Was this the vision for Google’s pixel?
The "Google Play Edition" Android phones were probably closer in concept: standard OEM hardware, but sold through the OS vendor's retail channels with a 'clean' software configuration.
Then there's Android One, but that is an absolute disaster at this point, with unoptimized software and updates that brick phones. Google themselves haven't been doing too good on software reliability this year; just look at Android 11, especially on the Pixel 2 and 4a. Both have huge bugs and in the 2's case, they will never be fixed. And some Android 11 bugs won't be fixed until Android 12 comes out.
I'm seriously considering a switch to iOS at this point.
I'm seriously considering a switch to iOS at this point.
I really like my Android One Nokia 6.1. It was a little rough for the first 6 months with random slowdowns and stuttering after being on for more than a few days (fixed with a reboot) but since then it has been great.
Admittedly it has a rubbish camera but I don't really take pictures so that's fine with me. For a £200 phone it has been just as good for my needs as every flagship nexus/pixel I've owned asside from the crap camera.
It's got to the point that it'll be out of support soon and I'm having a hard time finding a decent replacement for anything near a comparable price.
Maybe it's time to try out LineageOS?
Admittedly it has a rubbish camera but I don't really take pictures so that's fine with me. For a £200 phone it has been just as good for my needs as every flagship nexus/pixel I've owned asside from the crap camera.
It's got to the point that it'll be out of support soon and I'm having a hard time finding a decent replacement for anything near a comparable price.
Maybe it's time to try out LineageOS?
> Admittedly it has a rubbish camera but I don't really take pictures so that's fine with me.
That makes me sad to hear. One of my favorite things about the old Nokia (especially the Lumia series) was that they cared about having good camera hardware. The low end stuff was better than most of the other brands I tried, and if you got something with PureView...
That makes me sad to hear. One of my favorite things about the old Nokia (especially the Lumia series) was that they cared about having good camera hardware. The low end stuff was better than most of the other brands I tried, and if you got something with PureView...
Looking at the latest lineup the cameras are probably better now, they all have the standard array of multiple cameras on the back. Personally I couldn't care less for cameras on phones so a big camera bump is kinda a downside for me!
+1 for nokia 6.1! I really like the continuous stream of updates, unlike on my old phones with samsung flavor of Android
The Pixel is more of the Surface of Google devices. Devices made by the software company to showcase their platforms.
Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.
Authoritarian walled gardens and "herding" users? Do NOT want!
The freedom to install and uninstall (and also modify, but that's a slightly different argument...) whatever software you want on the hardware you own is extremely valuable to the concept of general-purpose computing, and yet we are slowly losing that freedom due to these stupid "security" and "damaging their brand" arguments --- and the same goes for right-to-repair.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using
What's even more hostile? A proprietary feature that only works in one application. Composition is one of the cornerstones of computing freedom, and another thing that is being slowly chipped away by the corporatocracy; also under the guise of security and privacy, not surprisingly. They want to slowly take away your choices and then nickel-and-dime you to get a fraction of them back.
Having the filter on by default is not nice, I'll agree with you on that --- but it's a huge stretch to go from that, to essentially declaring war against general-purpose computing.
Authoritarian walled gardens and "herding" users? Do NOT want!
The freedom to install and uninstall (and also modify, but that's a slightly different argument...) whatever software you want on the hardware you own is extremely valuable to the concept of general-purpose computing, and yet we are slowly losing that freedom due to these stupid "security" and "damaging their brand" arguments --- and the same goes for right-to-repair.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using
What's even more hostile? A proprietary feature that only works in one application. Composition is one of the cornerstones of computing freedom, and another thing that is being slowly chipped away by the corporatocracy; also under the guise of security and privacy, not surprisingly. They want to slowly take away your choices and then nickel-and-dime you to get a fraction of them back.
Having the filter on by default is not nice, I'll agree with you on that --- but it's a huge stretch to go from that, to essentially declaring war against general-purpose computing.
Nobody has every forced you to buy a Mac or iOS device, and there are thousands of other options available.
It's old software, it's not like there was much of a standard on how to apply filters and etc decades ago. Everything was a one off attempt to get the job done.
And even today everything about audio / video chat is wonky.
I'm always trying to figure out what application is using what audio or video device. Is the OS messing it up or the application or what is any given conference app choosing to use today ....
It's bad when Lego Star Wars is onto it:
https://youtu.be/dwNWTmN-x4s?t=191
And even today everything about audio / video chat is wonky.
I'm always trying to figure out what application is using what audio or video device. Is the OS messing it up or the application or what is any given conference app choosing to use today ....
It's bad when Lego Star Wars is onto it:
https://youtu.be/dwNWTmN-x4s?t=191
Same here, even if Google Meet, Skype, Teams, Slack et. al worked last week will it work now after latest firmware- and software update? Many times it doesn't without tweaks and the UI might have changed as well. I would like a external physical device I can use for video meetings that guarantee 100% working without needing to tweak anything, I think a lot of companies would be willing to pay for that
Facebook is trying (tried?) that with the Portal, but it was only limited to Facebook Messenger IIRC
> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost.
And now they are actively distributing it through Windows Update: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24502768
And now they are actively distributing it through Windows Update: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24502768
These manufacturer "drivers" are so incredibly obnoxious. How can Microsoft be powerless against this? I managed to reverse engineer's most of my laptop's features and replace the slow manufacturer software with my own. Surely Microsoft can pay professionals to do the same thing...
Not exactly. The popup in that example is an installer for companion software which provides functionality for the hardware that was listed on the box. The installer appears when you first plug in the device. If you close it, nothing is installed and it never appears again.
Step one, back in the day when computers shipped with cd drives and a windows cd, was to format c:, and then re-install windows from scratch to eliminate the crap ware. I haven't used windows in many years. I assume that's still the way to go.
Back in the early 2000s I worked in a small Mom and Pop computer store. One of big selling points was that our custom built PCs were not full of the crud you got from the big OEMs. If you didn't buy it, we didn't install it.
I still do it. I've no use for Dell's live support app and whatever else they ship.
The difference now is that you also have to:
1. Uninstall Candy Crush and similar.
2. Disable Cortana.
3. Disable ads and internet search for your Start button.
4. Click through several small greyed out buttons to have a local account instead of cloud account.
5. Do some of these things again whenever an update nukes part of your settings.
As a bonus, they still haven't fixed the decades old thing in file manager where all your directories default to displaying in stupid mode.
In short: pay for the professional version of Windows or prepare to be annoyed.
The difference now is that you also have to:
1. Uninstall Candy Crush and similar.
2. Disable Cortana.
3. Disable ads and internet search for your Start button.
4. Click through several small greyed out buttons to have a local account instead of cloud account.
5. Do some of these things again whenever an update nukes part of your settings.
As a bonus, they still haven't fixed the decades old thing in file manager where all your directories default to displaying in stupid mode.
In short: pay for the professional version of Windows or prepare to be annoyed.
Win Pro still annoys me. And they have telemetry baked deep into the OS. Pass. Same for macOS these days. Linux is quickly becoming the only viable privacy preserving OS.
Is there any way to disable web search in Start Menu without Registry hack?
Seems fair. If you want to pay bargain basement prices, you get bargain basement junk.
Download ISO, burn to USB, boot from USB and install is the modern equivalent.
Doing this for MacOS is surprising hard. Fortunately crapware isn’t a thing, although a few of the built in apps seem to try and drive me demented (looking at you Siri, Stock, Music, auto update).
It’s quite easy and well-documented:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201372
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201372
I thought you had given me a way for something that has troubled me repeatedly. Alas no.
On trying to download Mojave from Catalina I get "Update not found. The requested version of macOS is not available."
The system seems to try and be clever and uses software updater, and software updater says I can't have that version.
So how do you get Mojave?
Edit: On further testing, maybe this is a regional issue? I'm not in the US and the link is to the US app Store. This makes the App Store app unhappy ("Cannot connect to app store"). Changing the URL to my region doesn't help. Same issue for all downloads that predate my current version (Catalina). El Cap and Big Sur download nicely.
On trying to download Mojave from Catalina I get "Update not found. The requested version of macOS is not available."
The system seems to try and be clever and uses software updater, and software updater says I can't have that version.
So how do you get Mojave?
Edit: On further testing, maybe this is a regional issue? I'm not in the US and the link is to the US app Store. This makes the App Store app unhappy ("Cannot connect to app store"). Changing the URL to my region doesn't help. Same issue for all downloads that predate my current version (Catalina). El Cap and Big Sur download nicely.
> Plug the bootable installer into a Mac that is connected to the internet and compatible with the version of macOS you're installing.
Why does it have to be connected to the Internet? The point of using a USB installer is for it to work offline.
Why does it have to be connected to the Internet? The point of using a USB installer is for it to work offline.
> A bootable installer doesn't download macOS from the internet, but it does require an internet connection to get firmware and other information specific to the Mac model.
The presence of bundled apps which I don't use realy bother me, and always have. On old versions of macOS, I wiped all of them out with a post-installation script. sudo -rm did the trick, and never broke anything else. (They sometimes came back after major updates, but I had a "post-upgrade" script for that.)
Big Sur makes this incredibly painful though, with its root filesystem stuff. Not sure what I'll do if I ever need to use that version. It may or may not be worth it to modify the snapshot...
Big Sur makes this incredibly painful though, with its root filesystem stuff. Not sure what I'll do if I ever need to use that version. It may or may not be worth it to modify the snapshot...
You can (on most MacBooks at least) restart in recovery mode and do a partition wipe + fresh install with a WiFi connection.
I've bookmarked directions for it. For the admittedly out-of-date High Sierra, for instance: https://www.howtogeek.com/285922/how-to-create-a-bootable-us...
If you think the average user understands a single word of what you just said, you’re in for a rude awakening. Not meant to diss you the slightest.
[deleted]
Microsoft now have branding around "hardware that ships with vanilla Windows" to try and mitigate the problem; likewise you can download a USB key image and use it to reset to a blank Windows install.
This sort of crapware feeds off the folks who aren't aware of the options, or comfortable performing them.
This sort of crapware feeds off the folks who aren't aware of the options, or comfortable performing them.
Microsoft's branding was called "Signature Edition" and seems to have been quietly killed with the shutdown of retail Microsoft Stores.
Oh no, that's not the way to go at all. Windows itself is the crapware. Integrated ads in the windows menu, telemetry beyond Facebook's wildest dreams, a dumb search that goes to the internet for things that are on your machine...
Fortunately it is great for gaming and I have macOS for everything else.
Fortunately it is great for gaming and I have macOS for everything else.
This works until you plug in a Razer mouse. Then Windows will autodownload and run the Synapse installer. You can exit, and the mouse works fine (it's just USB), but the installer will run again after every boot.
I'm fairly sure the Synapse software is also cloud-based and requires a login to even use.
And it's Electron-based.
I bought a Razor mouse a year ago (a mistake I won't repeat), and wanted to disable the pointless built-in LEDs. Can't do that without Synapse, and the settings are not retained when you exit the program. So you must keep it running at all times, or you'll be forced to have circus lights on your desk.
I disassembled the mouse and tore out the LEDs. So much for the "just turn it off"-crowd that appears whenever I complain about RGB-infested hardware.
Also, Razer hid the screws under the plastic feet of the mouse, so now they're all wonky since I had to remove them to take the mouse apart.
Don't buy Razer.
I bought a Razor mouse a year ago (a mistake I won't repeat), and wanted to disable the pointless built-in LEDs. Can't do that without Synapse, and the settings are not retained when you exit the program. So you must keep it running at all times, or you'll be forced to have circus lights on your desk.
I disassembled the mouse and tore out the LEDs. So much for the "just turn it off"-crowd that appears whenever I complain about RGB-infested hardware.
Also, Razer hid the screws under the plastic feet of the mouse, so now they're all wonky since I had to remove them to take the mouse apart.
Don't buy Razer.
Also, Razer hid the screws under the plastic feet of the mouse, so now they're all wonky since I had to remove them to take the mouse apart.
Most if not all mouses are designed like that. You can even buy sheets of replacement mouse feet, with varying levels of friction, if you find the current ones too slippery or sticky.
Most if not all mouses are designed like that. You can even buy sheets of replacement mouse feet, with varying levels of friction, if you find the current ones too slippery or sticky.
Or just use electrical tape. It's not the same, but it works
Run shitware in a VM, capture USB HID traffic, write an app to replay the same packets using libusb, enjoy /s
I too will never buy razer again due to this
> Another reason why the macOS model is better for users.
This makes it possible for the OS companies to bilk the entire industry while they protect their ecosystem with an infinitely deep moat.
There's a spectrum here. On one end, we have completely a completely open OS. Less knowledgable people can certainly be harmed. On the other, the OS is a protected fiefdom. An entire industry is protected and taxed, and the execution model held hostage. You can't run or distribute software freely.
There's good reason Microsoft lost their case. The requirements for openness are better for competition and innovation, even if it sometimes hurts the little guy.
A better, targeted solution for this exact case might be regulation requiring that OEMs offer a zero-bloat option to consumers. They could add a price markup to make back their margin. (Hardware, other than luxury hardware, can have razor thin margins.) Zero regulation (maintaining the status quo) isn't really the end of the world, either.
All giants should have weak points. Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. If they don't, we get trampled.
This makes it possible for the OS companies to bilk the entire industry while they protect their ecosystem with an infinitely deep moat.
There's a spectrum here. On one end, we have completely a completely open OS. Less knowledgable people can certainly be harmed. On the other, the OS is a protected fiefdom. An entire industry is protected and taxed, and the execution model held hostage. You can't run or distribute software freely.
There's good reason Microsoft lost their case. The requirements for openness are better for competition and innovation, even if it sometimes hurts the little guy.
A better, targeted solution for this exact case might be regulation requiring that OEMs offer a zero-bloat option to consumers. They could add a price markup to make back their margin. (Hardware, other than luxury hardware, can have razor thin margins.) Zero regulation (maintaining the status quo) isn't really the end of the world, either.
All giants should have weak points. Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. If they don't, we get trampled.
> The requirements for openness are better for competition and innovation, even if it sometimes hurts the little guy.
Except that this is completely false. Microsoft has almost the same PC market share, and no innovation has occurred on the desktop other than by Apple, and to a lesser extent Microsoft’s own response to Apple.
Except that this is completely false. Microsoft has almost the same PC market share, and no innovation has occurred on the desktop other than by Apple, and to a lesser extent Microsoft’s own response to Apple.
It's probably "on" in the sense that it creates a virtual webcam device. When Zoom pulls up the list of cameras, it probably doesn't know "Actual Camera" from "Cat Mode Virtual Camera" whatever heuristic it uses to decide which one is going to be the default picks Cat Mode.
"OS companies should make their own hardware."
That sounds like car firms should make their own petrol/gas or 3D printer firms should enforce their PLA/etc or perhaps printer firms (like HP) should enforce their own ink/toner.
That's my personal definition of a monopoly with benefits - no thanks.
That sounds like car firms should make their own petrol/gas or 3D printer firms should enforce their PLA/etc or perhaps printer firms (like HP) should enforce their own ink/toner.
That's my personal definition of a monopoly with benefits - no thanks.
That's not at all what a monopoly is, just a very constrained product. Which...can describe Apple from day one. And you know what? Even if you despise Apple, you should give them credit for being relevant in even the most dominant days of the PC just for providing some competitive pressure.
Performance car and motorcycle manufacturers _do_ have recommended oil and fuel providers
But it's more akin to car companies making both the car _and_ the engine - which wasn't the case in the stagecoach/early era
But it's more akin to car companies making both the car _and_ the engine - which wasn't the case in the stagecoach/early era
I think in the NYT story about this incident, it said that he was using his assistant's computer.
> Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost.
This is only part of the story but functionally it was the same. Also 95/98/Me were woefully insecure. And they didn't take security seriously until it started getting really bad mid-2000s.
This is only part of the story but functionally it was the same. Also 95/98/Me were woefully insecure. And they didn't take security seriously until it started getting really bad mid-2000s.
> Also 95/98/Me were woefully insecure.
To be (somewhat) fair, those Operating Systems were intended to run on standalone consumer machines that weren't permanently attached to a network. The most likely means of getting infected with a virus/malware back in the Win95 days was via the floppy drive.
Though always-on internet connections was clearly the direction things were moving toward the end of the 90s - there was no excuse for going back to the trough with WinME rather than pushing everyone to NT.
To be (somewhat) fair, those Operating Systems were intended to run on standalone consumer machines that weren't permanently attached to a network. The most likely means of getting infected with a virus/malware back in the Win95 days was via the floppy drive.
Though always-on internet connections was clearly the direction things were moving toward the end of the 90s - there was no excuse for going back to the trough with WinME rather than pushing everyone to NT.
Winsock was included with 95 so they had networking available by default. And network has been in Windows since 3.1 so I wouldn't say it was a lack of forethought. They just did not practice basic security and left it to the rest of the world to protect themselves.
> Also 95/98/Me were woefully insecure.
Who could forget the login bypass "hack": https://i.imgur.com/rG0p0b2.gif
Who could forget the login bypass "hack": https://i.imgur.com/rG0p0b2.gif
Something similar works with the Windows 7 recovery partition; it pretends you have to login to one of the administrator accounts to get control, but one of the dialog has a link to a privacy policy that opens in Notepad and from its file open dialog you can start command prompts, explorer etc.
You can do a trick on Windows 10 too (if the disk isn't encrypted and secure boot enabled).
Boot a Linux usb live boot of choice, mount the Windows C: parition. Rename the Command Prompt exe to be the accessibility or sticky keys exe (something roughly along those lines). Save and reboot into Windows. Hit the on screen keyboard button on the login screen and an administrator level command prompt opens allowing you to reset the local admin password to be able to log in or do anything else that you would like to do.
Boot a Linux usb live boot of choice, mount the Windows C: parition. Rename the Command Prompt exe to be the accessibility or sticky keys exe (something roughly along those lines). Save and reboot into Windows. Hit the on screen keyboard button on the login screen and an administrator level command prompt opens allowing you to reset the local admin password to be able to log in or do anything else that you would like to do.
if you can boot a linux usb, you can change the password directly with chntpw. the command prompt trick allows you to do one-up -> work from the system account or create a new administrator-level account and delete it afterwards allowing the user's password to remain the same.
and on most PCs you don't need secure boot to block booting from USBs, a BIOS password is usually enough...
and on most PCs you don't need secure boot to block booting from USBs, a BIOS password is usually enough...
Saw a security presenter do this last year live at MS Ignite on their latest Win10 release. The collective pie on every MS Windows developer in the room could fill a boat.
Would have been amazing if their QA team had this as something to test for
> OS companies should make their own hardware.
Microsoft does make their own hardware amd last time I checked, it's still full of bloatware. Not as full as old consumer-tier HP laptops used to be, but still.
As for removing OEM bloatware, an option in Windows to ignore the OEM force install partition would be trivial to add, so people could just factory reset to a clean install after buying their machine.
Microsoft does make their own hardware amd last time I checked, it's still full of bloatware. Not as full as old consumer-tier HP laptops used to be, but still.
As for removing OEM bloatware, an option in Windows to ignore the OEM force install partition would be trivial to add, so people could just factory reset to a clean install after buying their machine.
I don't want the same to happen to Android. Basically every single non-Pixel phone these days ships bloatware with it.
Android being open source based, Google can't realistically stop bloatware.
They can theoretically tie the bloatware ban to the Play Store license, like how they force OEMs to install Chrome, Maps and YouTube if they want to have Play Store on their phone, but alternative stores are already on the rise after recent controversies (deleting negative reviews (robinhood, tiktok), deleting unwanted apps from store (fortnite, parler), regional app blocking (tiktok in india)), and doing so would probably just push OEMs to abandon play store in favor of their own store...
They can theoretically tie the bloatware ban to the Play Store license, like how they force OEMs to install Chrome, Maps and YouTube if they want to have Play Store on their phone, but alternative stores are already on the rise after recent controversies (deleting negative reviews (robinhood, tiktok), deleting unwanted apps from store (fortnite, parler), regional app blocking (tiktok in india)), and doing so would probably just push OEMs to abandon play store in favor of their own store...
I got a ROG Phone 3 recently, and while it does come with some OEM software, most of it is actually pretty useful. The only obvious "yeah you were paid to put this crap on my phone, not because you thought it improved the experience" application was Netflix, which - while entirely useless to me - is a pretty decent showing as far as OEM bloatware goes.
Still not quite as clean as a Nexus/Pixel but the best install experience I've ever had on any non-Google device, and the only one I've ever decided not to install a fresh ROM on.
Still not quite as clean as a Nexus/Pixel but the best install experience I've ever had on any non-Google device, and the only one I've ever decided not to install a fresh ROM on.
> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.
You're thinking of this backwards. The problem isn't too much antitrust enforcement, it's not enough.
If all the major OEMs are bundling crapware then it's a cartel and installing the crapware is anti-competitive tying (or is the cartel shaking down the crapware vendors for money to include theirs instead of encouraging the user to choose a competitor), so go enforce antitrust against the OEMs too.
If not all of them do it then the ones who do get panned in reviews and lose business, reducing the incentive to do it.
You're thinking of this backwards. The problem isn't too much antitrust enforcement, it's not enough.
If all the major OEMs are bundling crapware then it's a cartel and installing the crapware is anti-competitive tying (or is the cartel shaking down the crapware vendors for money to include theirs instead of encouraging the user to choose a competitor), so go enforce antitrust against the OEMs too.
If not all of them do it then the ones who do get panned in reviews and lose business, reducing the incentive to do it.
> Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.
Yeah, I personally love vendor lock in, price gouging, and having no aftermarket parts support whatsoever.</sarcasm>
Yeah, I personally love vendor lock in, price gouging, and having no aftermarket parts support whatsoever.</sarcasm>
> As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost
Haven't heard that, but haven't paid much attention to windows since c. 2000 - I believe it's more stable and secure now than it was in the windows 98 days.
Why not have a "reset to clean install" option in windows, which resets everything to just the installed state? Why not distribute the windows CD with the machine so the user can reinstall?
Haven't heard that, but haven't paid much attention to windows since c. 2000 - I believe it's more stable and secure now than it was in the windows 98 days.
Why not have a "reset to clean install" option in windows, which resets everything to just the installed state? Why not distribute the windows CD with the machine so the user can reinstall?
Windows has that feature now. It's surprisingly effective, and is smart enough to preserve, for the most part, user files as well.
A major reason that CD's stopped being used is the straight up lack of optical drives on modern computers. In most cases these days you specifically need to look for a device that includes optical or other physical media that is not USB.
Given the ubiquity of internet access in most markets where computers are sold (even in developing countries), it is very reasonable to expect that even as a last ditch, the user will be able to connect to the internet on a tethered cell phone, and this is reflected by the fact that on consumer OS you can specify that a connection is metered.
A major reason that CD's stopped being used is the straight up lack of optical drives on modern computers. In most cases these days you specifically need to look for a device that includes optical or other physical media that is not USB.
Given the ubiquity of internet access in most markets where computers are sold (even in developing countries), it is very reasonable to expect that even as a last ditch, the user will be able to connect to the internet on a tethered cell phone, and this is reflected by the fact that on consumer OS you can specify that a connection is metered.
The restore CDs that the OEM included with the computer still had all the crap baked into it. You needed a retail copy of Windows and hopefully someone hadn't ripped the OEM key sticker off the computer.
The OEM key would be usually encoded into the BIOS on newer releases of Windows, and could be read from a working Windows install using a freeware utility. In practice, it was unlikely you'd have to reinstall on a freshly wiped PC that you don't have an OEM key for.
I'm talking 20 years ago, when the average windows machine was a bugladen mess of crap piled on by the OEM because they got paid a bit, and the only "restore cd" was an OEM disk which had all the crap.
A proper windows CD would have allowed people to wipe all that out and just have vanilla windows. Microsoft weren't interested in that.
A proper windows CD would have allowed people to wipe all that out and just have vanilla windows. Microsoft weren't interested in that.
My father asked me to “fix his laptop”, I looked at it and wasn’t able to tell if it was windows 10 or 8 or Vista. It has become some strange hybrid somehow with telling different things in the different parts of the OS. Also the styling would be different at the different parts of the OS(The windows menu looks like 10 but the window decorations are like Vista etc.). He had some professional software that wants to keep so I didn’t dare to do a fresh install or clean up, left it as is. He is still using it just like that.
I think he's running with DWM turned off: https://superuser.com/questions/1016170/temporarily-disable-...
Because you want the drivers and hardware quirk fixes that the oem included, just not the bloatware/malware that they were paid to include.
Not all hardware is as friendly as Linux on a Thinkpad... Sometimes a clean install would leave you without a display, or would put some bizarre peripheral in an unusable state.
Not all hardware is as friendly as Linux on a Thinkpad... Sometimes a clean install would leave you without a display, or would put some bizarre peripheral in an unusable state.
Why wouldn't the OS manufacturer bundle required drivers?
A big green 'Accept Windows Defaults' button on the first boot that bricks the computer would be a pretty big incentive for vendors to sort out their drivers.
But they wouldn't sort out their drivers. They'd just tell the user not to click it.
I could be wrong because, like you, I haven't used Windows in quite some time (jumped ship when Windows 8 came along and never used it), but I think Windows 10 does include some sort of clean install/reset setting.
I would agree with their own hardware.
I do like their surface machines a lot (PowerMacBook User before, switched because of the pen input/drawing for workshops).
They should have a fancy/premium Windows version that everyone wants and that's more like OSX for their machines to pull people over. Everyone else gets stock Windows (a little bit like Android model to prevent being sued).
I do like their surface machines a lot (PowerMacBook User before, switched because of the pen input/drawing for workshops).
They should have a fancy/premium Windows version that everyone wants and that's more like OSX for their machines to pull people over. Everyone else gets stock Windows (a little bit like Android model to prevent being sued).
> OS companies should make their own hardware.
If we can't expect hardware companies to write good software, it's unlikely that software companies' hardware will be much better unless they put a ton of effort into it (which they likely won't unless they're a premium brand like Apple).
If we can't expect hardware companies to write good software, it's unlikely that software companies' hardware will be much better unless they put a ton of effort into it (which they likely won't unless they're a premium brand like Apple).
Microsoft's Surface line of hardware is held in high regard though.
The guy was interviewed by Inside Edition and said that he was using his assistant's computer which she uses to communicate with her daughter. She had the filter set for her. He did not know how turn it off.
The strange thing is that no one will be surprised. If that would have happened with Macs the dissing about Apple would be endless, but Dell will get a pass because expectations are low.
Sounds more like a legal problem than a problem with the model.
He said he is using the laptop of his secretary.
You're making a mountain out of a hill. The threat level here is purrrrple at most
>Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.
That is a pretty strange conclusion to draw. I would say this is a reason computers should ship with no software installed whatsoever. Hardware vendors using software as a differentiator is what started this mess. All PCs are pretty much interchangeable and should be treated like it.
(If they aren't interchangeable, that's because someone is selling broken hardware. Looking at you, Nvidia.)
That is a pretty strange conclusion to draw. I would say this is a reason computers should ship with no software installed whatsoever. Hardware vendors using software as a differentiator is what started this mess. All PCs are pretty much interchangeable and should be treated like it.
(If they aren't interchangeable, that's because someone is selling broken hardware. Looking at you, Nvidia.)
That was really only the case in the last decade and now no longer the case with M1 chips. Before that we had a wonderful plethora of different personal computers.
Hard disagree, it's a very selective (and unnecessary) reasoning that completely ignores the dangerous mindset and harm to users that closed ecosystems promote.
>
fossuser 10 hours ago | parent | on: Viral 'I'm not a cat' filter is decades-old softwa...
This makes more sense to me, I was wondering how that would have gotten set by a clueless user. The answer turns out to be that old dell machines shipped some shitty avatar software (along with lots of other stuff) that defaulted to on. The lawyer is probably using an ancient dell computer with this software and hasn't used video chat on it before this.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using - so it would have been harder to know about and turn off.
As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware. Isn't candy crush installed on new windows 10 installs?
This makes more sense to me, I was wondering how that would have gotten set by a clueless user. The answer turns out to be that old dell machines shipped some shitty avatar software (along with lots of other stuff) that defaulted to on. The lawyer is probably using an ancient dell computer with this software and hasn't used video chat on it before this.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using - so it would have been harder to know about and turn off.
As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware. Isn't candy crush installed on new windows 10 installs?
Tangentially, the cat laywer is a piece of shit:
https://reason.com/2021/02/10/zoom-cat-lawyer-rod-ponton-use...
https://reason.com/2021/02/10/zoom-cat-lawyer-rod-ponton-use...
"The whole internet loves Milkshake Duck, a lovely duck that drinks milkshakes! 5 seconds later We regret to inform you the duck is racist"
Damn. The apology letter that they had his ex-lover write as a condition of bail is still up on the sheriff's facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=802064459817968
I wasn't aware that US courts are allowed to compel prisoners to make specific public statements without a trial.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=802064459817968
I wasn't aware that US courts are allowed to compel prisoners to make specific public statements without a trial.
years ago, the judge in the video hired a bodyguard to follow him around town (this region is sparsely populated high desert, not unlike fallout), and would have him carry an ornate "chalice" inside his bag to produce on demand while the judge was dining. i heard this from a friend from the area long before this video.
Heh, that's actually pretty funny.
Thanks for ruining it for us :(
Why can't we have our 50 seconds of lighthearted internet tidbit without some journalist trying to force a story about it? A random dude working as a kitten is all I want to remember about this episode.
Why can't we have our 50 seconds of lighthearted internet tidbit without some journalist trying to force a story about it? A random dude working as a kitten is all I want to remember about this episode.
Oddly, there are people out there who feel that exposing vicious government-employed predators is more important than preserving your blissful ignorance. At any rate, one nice thing about the internet is that nobody will force you to click the links, so you can easily maintain your happy-bubble if you so choose.
There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations and have far more information about whatever happened who can mete out punishments if they are necessary.
There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
> There are police and the justice system and people who will conduct investigations
Terrific. Let me know when the "police and the justice system and people" start investigating Rod Ponton's persistent and seemingly malevolent use of his vast prosecutorial power to destroy an innocent woman's life.
> There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Go ahead and address your letter of complaint to reason.com. Let them know you object to their "lynching" of Rod Ponton, based on nothing more than thorough journalism and public records.
> Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
Perhaps you don't care enough to learn about the case, or even read an article about it. Maybe you relate to Rod Ponton and sympathize with him. Regardless, given your apparent inclination to defend him from scrutiny by people who do happen to care, the only sensible response I can muster is Fuck You. You're part of the problem.
Terrific. Let me know when the "police and the justice system and people" start investigating Rod Ponton's persistent and seemingly malevolent use of his vast prosecutorial power to destroy an innocent woman's life.
> There is no need to sic the Internet lynch mob on every person unfortunate enough to get 5 seconds of fame for some dumb thing.
Go ahead and address your letter of complaint to reason.com. Let them know you object to their "lynching" of Rod Ponton, based on nothing more than thorough journalism and public records.
> Oddly enough, it is not the job of random people to pass judgement and harass strangers over the Internet based on a news article they skimmed for a couple seconds.
Perhaps you don't care enough to learn about the case, or even read an article about it. Maybe you relate to Rod Ponton and sympathize with him. Regardless, given your apparent inclination to defend him from scrutiny by people who do happen to care, the only sensible response I can muster is Fuck You. You're part of the problem.
Good idea. Let's get rid due process and the presumption of innocence, because you read an article about a jerk.
Take a deep breath and calm yourself. Reading one news article does not make you a judge, jury, or an executioner. This isn't a comic book, you are not the Punisher who gets to make criminals pay on your own terms.
It's highly disturbing that you view a desire for everyone (yes, even guilty people!) to have a fair trial before getting their life destroyed as a "problem" that I'm part of.
Take a deep breath and calm yourself. Reading one news article does not make you a judge, jury, or an executioner. This isn't a comic book, you are not the Punisher who gets to make criminals pay on your own terms.
It's highly disturbing that you view a desire for everyone (yes, even guilty people!) to have a fair trial before getting their life destroyed as a "problem" that I'm part of.
As far as I can tell, nobody here is advocating that we "get rid of due process and the presumption of innocence". And I assure you that neither I nor the fine reporters who've covered this consider ourselves the Punisher :)
What Rod Ponton did is not a matter of debate. It is in fact a matter of extensive public record. The legality of his actions on the other hand-- that is, whether they should be punishable under the law-- is a fair thing to debate, and I would certainly not wish to deprive Mr. Ponton of any of his legal rights whatsoever.
Quite the contrary, I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers. Rather than, you know, being protected by the system that he feeds, hidden from the prying eyes of the media and, when noticed in random HN threads, defended by sanctimonious sympathizers such as yourself.
Again, fuck you. I'm done with this.
What Rod Ponton did is not a matter of debate. It is in fact a matter of extensive public record. The legality of his actions on the other hand-- that is, whether they should be punishable under the law-- is a fair thing to debate, and I would certainly not wish to deprive Mr. Ponton of any of his legal rights whatsoever.
Quite the contrary, I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers. Rather than, you know, being protected by the system that he feeds, hidden from the prying eyes of the media and, when noticed in random HN threads, defended by sanctimonious sympathizers such as yourself.
Again, fuck you. I'm done with this.
> I think we would all (except you apparently) like to see Rod Ponton brought to trial in a neutral venue with competent representation, an impartial judge, and a jury of his peers
And do you think that stirring up an Internet mob is likely to achieve that? Historically, has that been what Internet mobs do? Are you somehow under the impression that Hacker News is a favorite hangout for the District Attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction? How exactly do you believe that cursing at random people on the Internet will achieve this goal?
I'll tell you what, if you email me in 30 days (March 13, 2021) and tell me that you've honestly thought about this even once in the previous 7 days, I'll Venmo you $5 USD. Honor system. My email is in my profile. If instead by then you've moved on to the next outrage du jour, maybe it's time to admit to yourself that you care more about feeling outraged than seeking justice.
And do you think that stirring up an Internet mob is likely to achieve that? Historically, has that been what Internet mobs do? Are you somehow under the impression that Hacker News is a favorite hangout for the District Attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction? How exactly do you believe that cursing at random people on the Internet will achieve this goal?
I'll tell you what, if you email me in 30 days (March 13, 2021) and tell me that you've honestly thought about this even once in the previous 7 days, I'll Venmo you $5 USD. Honor system. My email is in my profile. If instead by then you've moved on to the next outrage du jour, maybe it's time to admit to yourself that you care more about feeling outraged than seeking justice.
Well if nate_meurer is wrong about what the public record says, then Ron Ponton can very well use his connections to get the Brewster County Sheriff's Office to force him to roll over and write an obsequious apology and publish it on Facebook for many years, just like he did to his ex-lover. He's not just an innocent kitten who can't stand up for himself.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=802064459817968
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=802064459817968
Quick, if you and I just make ourselves feel really mad and outraged about that it will fix everything and make the world a better place. C'mon, let's go.
Are you doing it?
It's not working, try harder!
Are you doing it?
It's not working, try harder!
I'm amused. You're the only one trying to feel outraged. But you go do your thing.
Did you seriously call someone stating facts that really need to be known stirring up an internet mob?
Judge Ferguson and the attorney Rod Ponton are known pieces of shit here in Texas, so instead of crying about the facts- perhaps you should thank GP for enlightening you, and increasing your knowledge.
Judge Ferguson and the attorney Rod Ponton are known pieces of shit here in Texas, so instead of crying about the facts- perhaps you should thank GP for enlightening you, and increasing your knowledge.
It makes absolutely no difference in my life. Nor am I in a position to make a difference in either of their lives. By what possible definition of the word "need" do I need to know? What does my knowing accomplish? Exactly what are you expecting me to do about it?
There's a constable in Outer Mongolia who likes to kick puppies. Shall I tell you about him so you can be impotently outraged about it?
There's a constable in Outer Mongolia who likes to kick puppies. Shall I tell you about him so you can be impotently outraged about it?
For something that "makes absolutely no difference in my life", you sure are whining about it a lot. Do you have a dog in this fight?
If what you said were actually true, and you didn't care so much more than everyone else, then you would have never said anything about it in the first place, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't keep replying to everyone's messages, beating a dead horse, trying to stir up your own mob, making a big deal out of nothing, and telling other people that they're overreacting, when you're the one who's overreacting to something you claim you don't even care about.
If what you said were actually true, and you didn't care so much more than everyone else, then you would have never said anything about it in the first place, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't keep replying to everyone's messages, beating a dead horse, trying to stir up your own mob, making a big deal out of nothing, and telling other people that they're overreacting, when you're the one who's overreacting to something you claim you don't even care about.
It's clearly very important to you that nobody ever question public shaming. You must be very invested in publicly shaming people. Do you happen to be a journalist?
It's as if he has confused the cute little imaginary kitty cat with the evil old real lawyer, and he thinks you're ferociously going after an innocent kitten.
I find your position disturbing. You prefer a police state over social accountability? Fuck. That.
I have no idea how you managed to misinterpret my comment that badly. The existence of police does not imply a police state.
You prefer lynch mobs over due process? Fuck that.
You prefer lynch mobs over due process? Fuck that.
Nobody is forcing him to give up his rights over this incident, he isn’t going to jail, so calling it a “lynch mob” is disingenuous at best and a view-pushing exaggeration at worst. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean people have to like you for doing it, so what you say is a ‘lynch mob’ is just everyone collectively agreeing to not like someone for a few days.
No it is not just "people being mad at you for a couple days". Even people who are famous for good reasons and generally well liked get stalkers, occasionally violent ones. Pointing the attention of a hundred million plus people at someone and telling them "this person is bad and evil" all but guarantees there will be some nonzero number of mentally unbalanced people who will take it too seriously. You might as well shove them in front of a bus.
Why should you or I or anyone not directly involved need to like or dislike this person who has zero impact on our lives beyond a moment of amusement? If he committed crimes, I hope he goes to jail. But I don't have all the facts about that and I'm not on the jury so that isn't and shouldn't be up to me. And no, reading one news article does not constitute all the facts.
Why should you or I or anyone not directly involved need to like or dislike this person who has zero impact on our lives beyond a moment of amusement? If he committed crimes, I hope he goes to jail. But I don't have all the facts about that and I'm not on the jury so that isn't and shouldn't be up to me. And no, reading one news article does not constitute all the facts.
That's just a side effect of being in the news at all. Even before the internet was in everyone's pocket, celebrities had paparazzi and crazy stalkers. Bad people are going to do horrible things but that doesn't mean we should stop propagating all news thanks to them. You're basically advocating for a heckler's veto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
which specifically goes into violent reactions:
> Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
which specifically goes into violent reactions:
> Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
Wait, you swung a bit too far. The lynch mob cancels for petty reasons, when there's even a victim, it's not quite the same.
Must feel amazing to have so much faith that the justice system will hold those in power accountable for anything
I disagree. If you liked Chris Brown's music but finding out about what he did to Rihanna makes you feel sick, would you actually want to be his fan?
There’s a huge difference between being his fan and being a fan of his music.
I think GP's point is that if finding out about this does indeed ruin it for you, then it's probably a good thing you did find out about it.
If you put importance on not separating the art from the artist, you can't then go around complaining that you're finding out about how shitty your favourite artist is. I personally do separate the two, but in either case I would want to know if someone who has influence on me via their art is a piece of shit; so i may make sure not to let them have influence on me any other way than via their art (or make the decision that I'm too turned off to continue enjoying their art).
If you put importance on not separating the art from the artist, you can't then go around complaining that you're finding out about how shitty your favourite artist is. I personally do separate the two, but in either case I would want to know if someone who has influence on me via their art is a piece of shit; so i may make sure not to let them have influence on me any other way than via their art (or make the decision that I'm too turned off to continue enjoying their art).
I have a hell of a hard time being amused by Dilbert comic strips any more.
Seems like the "bogus" part of these bogus charges is that she was successfully staying ahead in the cat-and-mouse game to change which synthetic cannabinoids she was selling faster than the legislature could identify and ban specific chemicals. So she's just as much of a POS as he is.
you really feel the need to cancel the cat lawyer?
Using filters like this reminds me of the discussion in Infinite Jest, where people used masks and tiny dioramas to present a more attractive appearance over video calls before eventually abandoning it all and going back to audio-only.
Personally, I keep my webcam off at all times. Constantly mugging for the camera to show that I'm following along gets old.
Personally, I keep my webcam off at all times. Constantly mugging for the camera to show that I'm following along gets old.
I have not read that yet, but it seems very accurate. If you look up "Zoom fatigue" there are lots of people writing about why video calls can be so stressful. When you've got a webcam on you're way more aware of what you're doing with your body and face than you would be in an in-person meeting. Most people at my company have their webcams off at this point.
As someone with mild autism, I welcome the neurotypicals to literally every day of my life.
[deleted]
I haven't really noticed it personally. It might be because my meeting load didn't really increase during quarantine. We have like one extra "watercooler" meeting and I actually don't mind chatting with my coworkers. I will say that I generally keep my camera and mic muted if I'm in a meeting where I'm not actively part of the discussion.
Maybe it's my performance background, but if I'm talking (and especially if I'm presenting) it really important to me to be able to read the room, and it's really hard for me to present if I can't.
Maybe it's my performance background, but if I'm talking (and especially if I'm presenting) it really important to me to be able to read the room, and it's really hard for me to present if I can't.
I like being face to face for small conversations with coworkers, but the bigger the group the less likely I am to use camera, also if someone is sharing or presenting there's no reason to use camera.
Shhh - I'm working on a blog post about this very idea after finishing Jest a couple months ago. :)
Happy to see I'm not the only one who made the connection!
So the options are either "mug for the camera" or shut off your camera completely? You don't think there's any middle ground here?
Who cares? Face camera brings literally nothing to the discussion. If you are having a meeting you are having the meeting about something and that something is more important to be on the screen and in focus than your stupid little face. And if the meeting is about socializing the camera makes even less sense, you are probably doing something together and that should occupy your attention and not some silly moving picture of someone's face. I don't get this new face camera trend at all. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it adds anything. Whenever I see live streams and videos with face cam it always takes more away than adds back in.
> Who cares? Face camera brings literally nothing to the discussion.
They do if you're a human with actual emotions and not the stereotypical IT guy that's basically a meaty robot "only following logic" (always the shittiest devs to work with btw no matter how good they are on the technical side).
> And if the meeting is about socializing the camera makes even less sense, you are probably doing something together and that should occupy your attention and not some silly moving picture of someone's face.
Leave it to a techy forum like HN to produce disconnected, unreal shit like this sentence.
Newsflash, mimics and gestures exist for a biological reason and are an essential part in communication. It's exactly why emojis are a thing in the first place.
They do if you're a human with actual emotions and not the stereotypical IT guy that's basically a meaty robot "only following logic" (always the shittiest devs to work with btw no matter how good they are on the technical side).
> And if the meeting is about socializing the camera makes even less sense, you are probably doing something together and that should occupy your attention and not some silly moving picture of someone's face.
Leave it to a techy forum like HN to produce disconnected, unreal shit like this sentence.
Newsflash, mimics and gestures exist for a biological reason and are an essential part in communication. It's exactly why emojis are a thing in the first place.
This was a surprisingly hostile response overall. GP says that faces are a distraction, and you start calling them names.
> Newsflash, mimics and gestures exist for a biological reason and are an essential part in communication.
Blind people seem to do pretty well in both understanding and being understood. So I would argue that 'essential' could be replaced with 'helpful' for person-to-person interactions.
On a personal note: having a conversation with a constant 150-500s lag makes video distinctly unhelpful to my brain - in fact, it is extremely destructive to my ability to focus on the conversation at hand. And I can assure you I'm a human with emotions, [hopefully] not a 'shitty dev', and am neither a meat robot nor a disconnected techy.
> Newsflash, mimics and gestures exist for a biological reason and are an essential part in communication.
Blind people seem to do pretty well in both understanding and being understood. So I would argue that 'essential' could be replaced with 'helpful' for person-to-person interactions.
On a personal note: having a conversation with a constant 150-500s lag makes video distinctly unhelpful to my brain - in fact, it is extremely destructive to my ability to focus on the conversation at hand. And I can assure you I'm a human with emotions, [hopefully] not a 'shitty dev', and am neither a meat robot nor a disconnected techy.
Not true. There are many different ways a given statement in a fast-moving Slack channel may be interpreted. When you have a person’s facial expressions and tonal inflection as context, you can prune most of those possibilities.
Face to face communication is way better than text.
Face to face communication is way better than text.
> Face camera brings literally nothing to the discussion.
I would 100% disagree on that. In my humble opinion the "mental bandwidth" for communication is about 2-10x with video+audio compared with plain audio. Because you can see how the other person(s) react etc.
I would 100% disagree on that. In my humble opinion the "mental bandwidth" for communication is about 2-10x with video+audio compared with plain audio. Because you can see how the other person(s) react etc.
> I keep my webcam off at all times.
Disclaimer: No idea who you are or what and whom you work with.
But still: I think you and the people you have calls with are missing out. Seeing peoples reactions brings very much additional value to communication.
Disclaimer: No idea who you are or what and whom you work with.
But still: I think you and the people you have calls with are missing out. Seeing peoples reactions brings very much additional value to communication.
It's just nice to see the people that you're working with.
I had my camera on for the first week of WFH but I live with other people and having to constantly indicate to them whether my camera is on or not gets old fast.
I keep my Nintendo Switch positioned near my camera. Makes it look like I'm really into the meeting.
Okay, while I feel bad for the guy because some half-baked software on his laptop made him look silly, it was legitimately delightful to see a cute kitten appearing before a judge. I hope the guy isn’t too embarrassed by this and sees the humor in the situation.
I saw a journalist tweet that he had spoken with him and that he was enjoying the reaction.
He and the judge are currently doing rounds of morning news tv including an interview with Sunrise in Australia so I assume he sees the humor in it.
Yeah I shared it with a lot of people but I was feeling bad at the same time :-)
But good to know what guy enjoyed it in the end.
But good to know what guy enjoyed it in the end.
Seems fishy. I would say that there is a non-zero percent chance that he is a cat.
As Rod Ponton awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his video into a gigantic kitten.
For those who don't get the reference: it's a projection of the first line of The Metamorphosis by Kafka.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis
We need a filter to make a cat look like a human.
(I meant this as a joke comment, but now I'm thinking... those filters aren't that hard to make, and I've been wanting a project... this one would have my wife's support.)
(I meant this as a joke comment, but now I'm thinking... those filters aren't that hard to make, and I've been wanting a project... this one would have my wife's support.)
But what about the voice? If there was a miaaou to speech converter too
Just pick a random word to start with and let GPT-3 do the rest maybe?
He said he isn't--but that's exactly what a cat would say.
And 50/50 that he's alive.
Hmm. "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck", then it is a duck, probably. (As the Ruby people know.)
But if looks like a cat, and talks like a human?
> non-zero percent
A cat, + these new deep learning speech generation neutral nets?
But if looks like a cat, and talks like a human?
> non-zero percent
A cat, + these new deep learning speech generation neutral nets?
Well, we won’t know till we check [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
Is he in a box with poison?
Well, we won’t know till we check [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
He was there live, not a cat, but died inside.
Just tried the filter feature, click on the cat and the filter goes on, click on the cat again and you'd think it would go off, but it doesn't.
You actually have to scroll to the top and pick 'none' to make it turn off. Non-ideal UI which explains why they were struggling so much.
You actually have to scroll to the top and pick 'none' to make it turn off. Non-ideal UI which explains why they were struggling so much.
I have been trying to find this, thank you!
"Recording of this hearing or livestream is prohibited."
It was apparently posted by the judge himself:
> Seeing the moment as an educational opportunity, Ferguson posted the video and it was shared by Texas attorney Kendyl Hanks and Reuters U.S. Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. By Tuesday evening, one version on Twitter had been viewed more than 18 million times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/09/cat-law...
> Seeing the moment as an educational opportunity, Ferguson posted the video and it was shared by Texas attorney Kendyl Hanks and Reuters U.S. Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. By Tuesday evening, one version on Twitter had been viewed more than 18 million times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/09/cat-law...
Original source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxlPGPupdd8
Did the judge get consent from the parties involved?
Cats can't consent.
Can you cite purrcedent?
But, but, I'm here live. I'm not a cat.
[deleted]
Dell's default installation was so full of junk that it lead to the rise of the "Dell Decrapifier", a script specifically written to remove all the junk from the default install and turn a Dell into a usable computer.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070108044336/http://www.yorksp... [2006]
https://web.archive.org/web/20070108044336/http://www.yorksp... [2006]
Indeed, back in the early days if you bought a PC it was known you either had to decrapify or do a complete new install.
Problem with a new (legit) install was your key only worked for that specific OEM brand- ie Dell key for dell install disc, then hiding the drivers behind more crapware exe's. Not everyone at that time had multiple OEM install CDs, and I think this right here led to the massive spike in cracked copies between win 98-win xp.
Or everyone using the infamous ms key FCKGW RHQQ2 YXRKT 8TG6W 2B7Q8.
Now here we are facing the same bullshit with cellphones, and their solution is to prevent rooting and bootloader unlocking to remove our only way to combat this shit.
How is this not only still happening 20+ years later, but getting worse?
Problem with a new (legit) install was your key only worked for that specific OEM brand- ie Dell key for dell install disc, then hiding the drivers behind more crapware exe's. Not everyone at that time had multiple OEM install CDs, and I think this right here led to the massive spike in cracked copies between win 98-win xp.
Or everyone using the infamous ms key FCKGW RHQQ2 YXRKT 8TG6W 2B7Q8.
Now here we are facing the same bullshit with cellphones, and their solution is to prevent rooting and bootloader unlocking to remove our only way to combat this shit.
How is this not only still happening 20+ years later, but getting worse?
BBC hijacks the back button? Weird choice, that.
Seems like they're redirecting me from bbc.co.uk to bbc.com with history, so the back button only changes my country unless I hit it fast enough.
I wonder why they don't use `location.replace` [1]. It isn't exactly new.
Edit: ah, I see, it doesn't work for changing domains. Still, they could use e.g. bbc.co.uk/[country-code]/ as many other sites do.
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Location/re...
Edit: ah, I see, it doesn't work for changing domains. Still, they could use e.g. bbc.co.uk/[country-code]/ as many other sites do.
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Location/re...
Redirection is often erroneous, then destroying the history exacerbates the error. Data destruction is an antifeature, really.
I see where you're coming from, but having to press back twice quickly to get back to the page I actually came from is very annoying. It's essentially impossible on mobile.
Perhaps browsers should disable redirection on pages that have been reached via the back button? That could add a lot of complexity.
Perhaps browsers should disable redirection on pages that have been reached via the back button? That could add a lot of complexity.
In Firefox for Android, I can press and hold on the Back button in the '…' menu (not Android's Back button) to show the current Rab's history as a list. By touching an old history entry, I can navigate directly to it, skipping any redirects.
It's redirects international visitors to bbc.com
I think it's because they have ads internationally but aren't allowed to have ads in the UK
You have to wonder why that was a choice, when they could serve/not serve ads based on location, instead of hard redirecting.
This is very annoying. I sometimes want to see how BBC is covering events from a UK perspective, but it always redirects to bbc.com.
I could switch my VPN to UK, but it never seems worth the effort.
I could switch my VPN to UK, but it never seems worth the effort.
Looks like it's a script that redirects. I have noscript and scripts are disabled by default and the site doesn't redirect me.
It’s interesting to compare bbc.com vs bbc.co.uk reporting. You should try it for a month or two and see what you think.
It works for me
Dang. I was leafing through Zoom settings to find this filter...
If you actually want to have some interesting filters, I've found Snap Camera[0] is the easiest. It just presents itself as a virtual webcam and sends over the processed video so you can use it with pretty much any application.
[0] https://snapcamera.snapchat.com/
[0] https://snapcamera.snapchat.com/
Same. Couldn't find anything similar on snapchat either (snap camera can be selected as a camera in most software). The video has been all the rage in work discussions today, would have liked to be a cat in some meeting tomorrow.
You search this on snapcam to add it: https://www.snapchat.com/unlock/?type=SNAPCODE&uuid=3b99ac6d...
It was a success, thank you!
It’s hard to find out why this feature exists from a quick search, but I suspect default avatar (on webcam level, no less) could be an interesting safety measure rather than just a gimmick.
If properly implemented, this makes it impossible for the user to reveal their face by accident or from inexperience. Even if laptop operator ends up with some shady app that allows strangers to video call, mucking with system avatar settings would be required before their actual appearance can be seen.
If properly implemented, this makes it impossible for the user to reveal their face by accident or from inexperience. Even if laptop operator ends up with some shady app that allows strangers to video call, mucking with system avatar settings would be required before their actual appearance can be seen.
Where does this software exist in the 'stack' from webcam to videoconference software? Does it let you use the filters on any videoconf software? Seems like a vulnerability...
It takes the hardware webcam feed, adds its effects, and pushes to a feed via a virtual webcam device. So yeah, you could use it with most videoconf software.
There are also virtual webcam devices that don't take their input from a USB webcam, but from a smartphone app. Vulnerability? Luckily we're still free to install these kinds of software on our computers.
It's possible to install programs like this (for example there's one by Snapchat) which take the feed of one video source, and outputs a virtual webcam source. Early in the lockdown last year my manager was very amused he could be a potato in meetings.
Humans degrade gracefully, don't they? The BBC story does not say happens next but I'm guessing they proceeded with the case.
On a side note... why are they called filters? They are not filtering anything.
To expand on the other comment about signal processing filters and lens:
Analogue signals often have noise or other factors you want to get rid of. Maybe there's a low frequency drift you want out, or a high frequency noise you want out. From there, it goes to enhancing and more generally modifying the signal, as in edge detection, but the math is generally the same and so is the name "filtering." Or in position estimation from a signal, like a kalman filter or particle filter.
At that point filters are a hugely broad thing, and if you want to smooth an image, you might filter out the high frequency components (instant automatic airbrush) or maybe you want to remove all the blue (like a lens filter you might physically put in front of your camera) or even enhance all the blue. Then it's a small step to keeping the filtering name (yet again) for all sorts of signal/image/video auto-manipulations.
You start with wanting to get rid of noise or get rid of blue light and end up turning people's videos into cats. That's language for ya.
Analogue signals often have noise or other factors you want to get rid of. Maybe there's a low frequency drift you want out, or a high frequency noise you want out. From there, it goes to enhancing and more generally modifying the signal, as in edge detection, but the math is generally the same and so is the name "filtering." Or in position estimation from a signal, like a kalman filter or particle filter.
At that point filters are a hugely broad thing, and if you want to smooth an image, you might filter out the high frequency components (instant automatic airbrush) or maybe you want to remove all the blue (like a lens filter you might physically put in front of your camera) or even enhance all the blue. Then it's a small step to keeping the filtering name (yet again) for all sorts of signal/image/video auto-manipulations.
You start with wanting to get rid of noise or get rid of blue light and end up turning people's videos into cats. That's language for ya.
I don't follow. How are they not filtering?
edit: I see other comments point to instagram. I think that is giving insta way to much credit. This is filtering as in signal processing. It's a common term in audio, image, and video processing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_(signal_processing)
edit: I see other comments point to instagram. I think that is giving insta way to much credit. This is filtering as in signal processing. It's a common term in audio, image, and video processing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_(signal_processing)
Filter means to remove, not to add. Like `filter()` in Python or Swift being given a condition and a list and returning everything that meets the condition.
In image processing "filtering" has for over 30 years meant any algorithmic manipulation of an image as a whole (exhibit A: Photoshop's "Filters" menu). Simplest filters are also filters in the signal processing sense, but the meaning in this context is considerably broader than that.
I reckon filters were initially intended to remove specific frequencies/noise and the term grew from there. Which is how ffmpeg and other software ended up with video filters that don't actually remove anything.
Someone else mentioned lens filters as a possible source for the term but I'm pretty sure the signal processing term is at least partially responsible for the current usage.
Someone else mentioned lens filters as a possible source for the term but I'm pretty sure the signal processing term is at least partially responsible for the current usage.
So we should be calling these "face mappers" then >:D
I ran into something similar with maven builds today. Filtering resources with maven means replacing text in the resource with text from maven properties.
It is filtering, the input (video) is filtered down to specific features. i.e. in the cat filter it is filtering everything except eye position, mouth and maybe chin position relative to eyes.
"A filter is a computer program or subroutine to process a stream, producing another stream."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_(software)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_(software)
Most likely it derives from Instagram filters, which derives from lens filters.
DirectShow (the API for video capture and other things in Windows) has long had the concept of a filter which can be plugged into the video pipeline[0]. I'm not certain if that's the reason that the term is commonly used for effects such as the one discussed here, but this "cat filter" certainly might have been implemented as a DirectShow filter, so it's very plausible the terminology comes from that.
I'm pretty sure apps like this were called filters long before Instagram even existed.
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/directshow/di...
I'm pretty sure apps like this were called filters long before Instagram even existed.
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/directshow/di...
I thought it started in Snapchat, where they were just filters at first, but then the AR stuff started getting added and you’d access them the same way you would the plain filters. The name just stuck due to people not caring to call them something else. What else would they be called? Lenses, maybe?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Indeed. Filter suggests removing something. This is clearly adding something.
Instagram started as imitation of photographic filters, then from the same UI they started offering the face modifying “filters” and everyone kept calling it as. Maybe Snapchat was before instagram?
It comes from signal processing terminology.
Perception?
I'm curious if the person who recorded this is going to get fined $500 and a jail term of 180 days.
Speaking of which, does anyone know why the jail terms are always far more onerous than the fine? Even back when I worked at Target making $9 an hour, it'd take me maybe two weeks to come up with $500, why are the jail time sentences so disproportionately long compared to the maximum fine that can be levied? Is this because of inflation? Or to encourage you to pay the fine rather than serve jail time?
Speaking of which, does anyone know why the jail terms are always far more onerous than the fine? Even back when I worked at Target making $9 an hour, it'd take me maybe two weeks to come up with $500, why are the jail time sentences so disproportionately long compared to the maximum fine that can be levied? Is this because of inflation? Or to encourage you to pay the fine rather than serve jail time?
The judge in the case appears to have been the one to release the footage. https://twitter.com/JudgeFergusonTX
I've always assumed that whenever the law was originally passed, the fine and jail time were more sensibly related, but inflation has caused the fine's impact to plummet without reducing the jail time in a similar way. I'd love to know if anyone has a more detailed explanation.
[deleted]
A cute but still very real example of greed.
Dell is paid to advertise a product. The product is on by default. Such that the clueless user can learn about how much it would improve their life.
Dell is paid to advertise a product. The product is on by default. Such that the clueless user can learn about how much it would improve their life.
I'm pretty sure the software was free.
Free to the user, but these "free" apps were usually sponsored where the software developer paid Dell to include on all of their laptops
That seems pretty charitable in that case. I don't see where greed is involved here?
The greed is the advertising forced upon the user, at the expense of their computer resources and their time, in order to provoke them to buy more stuff that they otherwise would not ever think existed or that they would need.
The only charitable bit is that this popped up yesterday and gave millions of people a very much-needed laugh, but that was entirely unintentional.
The only charitable bit is that this popped up yesterday and gave millions of people a very much-needed laugh, but that was entirely unintentional.
You replied to a statement that had less than 25 words in it, and not one of them was "greed". The statement I replied to also did not include the word "greed".
You replied to my reply to OP who said:
> A cute but still very real example of greed.
Everything I said on my reply is in the context of that.
> A cute but still very real example of greed.
Everything I said on my reply is in the context of that.
Some asked if it was utilising deepfake technology because the filter seemed sophisticated
What I find amusing are the comments here calling it "crapware" when it's probably far more efficient than average software today. It likely uses only a few dozen MB to do its work, while the -- text and pictures only -- instant messaging client I'm forced to use for work takes several hundred MB of RAM and lags noticeably when typing.
What I find amusing are the comments here calling it "crapware" when it's probably far more efficient than average software today. It likely uses only a few dozen MB to do its work, while the -- text and pictures only -- instant messaging client I'm forced to use for work takes several hundred MB of RAM and lags noticeably when typing.
The term crap/shovel-ware usually denotes pre-installed garbage no one ever asked for or used except the completely uninitiated.
So it's not so much an indictment of the software itself but the way in which it was installed, which in turn made anyone with with any knowledge remove them ASAP without ever testing them like HP Games, which is still around today.
I remember this bonzii buddy my ex-fiancée's mother would keep installing on her computer and then complain it was infected and acting crazy. I would inform her about the toolbar she kept installing and how it would in turn install heaps of other garbage.
Her response? 'But I like it, he stays, just fix it.'
I still hate that stupid purple mokey to this day.
Check this[1] out ,this is extreme but it would definitely take up half or more of screen real estate.
[1] https://rent-a-nerd.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ie-toolba...
So it's not so much an indictment of the software itself but the way in which it was installed, which in turn made anyone with with any knowledge remove them ASAP without ever testing them like HP Games, which is still around today.
I remember this bonzii buddy my ex-fiancée's mother would keep installing on her computer and then complain it was infected and acting crazy. I would inform her about the toolbar she kept installing and how it would in turn install heaps of other garbage.
Her response? 'But I like it, he stays, just fix it.'
I still hate that stupid purple mokey to this day.
Check this[1] out ,this is extreme but it would definitely take up half or more of screen real estate.
[1] https://rent-a-nerd.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ie-toolba...
Under some definition of "efficiency" that isn't too fussed about whether the work was actually desired, sure. Crapware isn't really about the quality of the code, though. This could be the most pristine and elegant piece of software ever written under the hood, but that doesn't mean anyone wants it to come preinstalled on their laptop.
The most pristine and elegant piece of software ever written won't get in your way in the first place, people notice software only when it fails.
In this vein, I found it somewhat funny at the beginning of the pandemic how everyone was discovering Zoom's Virtual Backgrounds—a feature which Apple added to Photo Booth and iChat all the way back in Leopard. Presumably they took it out due to lack of use.
To be fair, Zoom's backgrounds seem to work in more types of lighting conditions, although the overall effect is less convincing IMO.
To be fair, Zoom's backgrounds seem to work in more types of lighting conditions, although the overall effect is less convincing IMO.
Zoom backgrounds work by some sort of machine learning to identify humans while the Photo Booth backgrounds just did a diff between an initial image and the current image, and displayed anything that was different. The plus side to Zoom is that you can move a chair or even the camera without messing everything up. The plus side to Photo Booth is that it had cleaner edges.
Someone needs to make this the other kind of viral and make it the default webcam device via a viral vector.
“Decades old” means the software must be at least 20 years old, thus from 2001 or older. According to the BBC, this came preinstalled on some Dell laptops in 2010. How can it be “decades old”??
Um, it's quite possible that software released in 2001 or earlier was part of shovelware still being dumped on laptops in 2010.
Especially the screenshot is a giveaway that the software is less than 19.5 years old. It shows Windows XP which was released only 19.5 years ago. The BBC heading is unfortunately lurid and not factual.
I can't open this link in any browser, mobile or desktop. Seems to be some sort of ad loop redirect ending in a white screen. Anyone else?
Same here. Seems to be a paywall. Try http://outline.com/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56010...
If you want a more legit solution: https://xpressioncamera.com
The best part of the video was the clarification "I am not a cat".
[deleted]
The answer turns out to be that old dell machines shipped some shitty avatar software (along with lots of other stuff) that defaulted to on. The lawyer is probably using an ancient dell computer with this software and hasn't used video chat on it before this.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using - so it would have been harder to know about and turn off.
As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.