[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Sure. Sure. They've been close or getting closer for 10 years now.

I'll believe it when it actually releases and not a moment sooner. Otherwise I would be the opposite of shocked if July 2025 rolls around and it's still not out but still "close". As I would be if December 2025 rolls around and "there are only a few more issues, very soon!" is the statement. It's become a joke at this point and likely will remain the butt of jokes and rightfully so for years, perhaps decades to come in the open source and graphics design communities.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago

The real answer is organize your library. There's no reason to have it like that.

At least create two folders "Movies" and "TV Shows" or however you want to name them. Put movies in the movies sub-folder, ideally in named folders that match the name of the movie (so Movies/The Godfather (1972)/moviefile.mkv) and TV shows in the other folder again with a subfolder for each show with year included.

The best way to do this is to use a media manager when adding files. Something like mediaelch or tiny media manager and scrape your films and ideally tv shows as well and create local metadata for them that you save. Both can do renaming though tmm does it slightly better if you pay for the subscription version and it can automatically scrape and rename your library along with creating the relevant nfo files and things like posters so Kodi just works.

I guess you could try connecting Kodi to another service. If you're okay running Plex on some other machine or Jellyfin you can connect Kodi to that if they scrape it all properly but most likely they'll have issues as well because the only real solution is organizing your library. There are paid tools as I mention as well as free ones. Filebot is another paid tool that does organization and such.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 weeks ago

My problem with this in spite of the dire situation they face if Google is forced to cut funding by anti-trust court rulings (or not even forced but they make paying off Mozilla a moot point so they stop) is that they become an ad company. Ads become tied to their CEO compensation, to the salaries of the people who develop it.

They claim they're making a better kind of ad network, a privacy respecting kind. The problem is the ad industry doesn't want less data, they want more. There are no looming laws that would force the ad industry to adopt a more privacy respecting alternative or die and without that the ad industry is going to shun this and it'll be a failure and then they'll have a failed ad network that they can either discard entirely or adapt to industry standards of privacy invasion and abuse and continue to exist and then they'll make another "hard choices" post about having to do that.

And I can see it now. This experiment will fail and after some pressure from the ad industry and some devil-on-shoulder whispering Mozilla will begrudgingly start to enshittify. Their ad network will become less privacy respecting by tiny little steps, by salami-slicing or boiling the frog, the whole privacy-preserving measurement thing will be thrown out BUT they'll still claim they respect you more than Google and will at first perhaps but that will erode. Maybe they'll just implode at some point after that which given Google is being found a monopoly works just fine for Google and the rest of big tech who want a more centralized, locked down browser company that wants to help implement DRM that can't be circumvented, that wants to help lock down everything on the web to restrict users freedoms to choose what is displayed or if they can save it or record it or copy it to say nothing of blocking ads.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 month ago

Cons:

You absolutely cannot get 2FA authenticator codes from 90% of services. Many services that require a phone number even without 2FA just for "verify you're a human" or because they want your data or to verify region use shortcode services that also will not work with ANY VOIP provider.

You will not receive their codes. These companies vary from banking institutions to gaming companies to online shopping marketplaces and stores to a Google account (used to be you could get an automated phone call to verify an account, not anymore, must be able to receive SMS from shortcodes that are disabled for VOIP numbers to register and to recover an account) just about anyone you could end up doing business with.

A shockingly large amount of companies demand phone numbers and send verification texts before allowing you to do business with them, to create an account, to recover an account, to delete an account, to place an order, etc.

They really shouldn't, it's a bad security practice but companies love it because with a phone number they can lower support costs by just allowing people to do a self-service where they get an automated text and can unlock their locked account. They also love harvesting that data and preventing anonymization with VOIP numbers and the reduction of fraud and increase of reliable KYC that comes with requiring them.

And they all take it as a given that EVERYONE or at least 99% have a cell plan with a non-VOIP number that works with these and the 1% who don't they don't care about in the developed world and are an acceptable loss.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That they should abolish (or at the least push for drastic, dramatic reforms, not promises of gradual reform maybe someday during election season but a mass movement, amendments, political action, pressure groups, etc) such a system rather than participate and kick the can down along the road.

Also that their rights will be taken away regardless if they're going to lose them.

Biden has done nothing to reverse what Trump has done, he postures, he does a few meaningless policies but at the back of it all he doesn't value the lives of those people you claim to care about because he won't stack the Supreme Court, because he and Kamala and the rest of the Democratic party are not interested in actually fighting the Republicans. Their theatrics that Trump is Hitler 2.0 shows them to be either people who want to enable Hitler 2.0 because they obviously aren't fighting tooth and nail and are quick to condemn someone trying to kill him (when let's be honest, most of us wouldn't condemn a person who shot at Hitler) OR people who don't truly believe that but know it's good branding. Either way they're not a party worth voting for, worth endorsing or worth considering as a real option to protect the vulnerable in this country or any other.

Fact is Republicans do the dirty deeds, Democrats put some peace paint and pride symbols on things but don't undo those dirty deeds. During Trump's term pundits and the Democratic party sobbed and wailed about "kids in cages" on the border and yet when Biden continued it? Nothing but silence. And Kamala's campaign is ramping up and leaning into that border racism by the way.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 months ago

No one but genocide loving zionists wants to hear the lying screeds of a genocidal, racist, apartheid regime. I care as much to read that as a copy of the latest "Jewish crimes" written by Nazi magazines in the 1930s.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It should be considered illegal if it was used to harm/sexually abuse a child which in this case it was.

Whether it should be classed as CSAM or something separate, I tend to think probably something separate as a revenge porn type law that still allows for distinguishing between this and say a girl whose uncle groomed and sexually abused her while filming it as while this is awful it can (and often does seem) be the product of foolish youth rather than the offender and those involved all being very sick, dangerous, and actually violent offending adult pedophiles victimizing children.

Consider the following:

  1. Underage girl takes a picture of her own genitals, unfortunately classified as the unhelpful and harmful term "child porn" and she can be charged and registered as a sex offender but it's not CSAM and -shouldn't- be considered illegal material or a crime (though it is because the west has a vile fixation on puritanism which hurts survivors of childhood sexual trauma as well as adults).

  2. Underage girl takes a picture of her genitals and sends it to her boyfriend, again /shouldn't/ be CSAM (unfortunately may be charged similarly), she consented and we can assume there wasn't any unreasonable level of coercion. What it is unfortunately is bound by certain notions of puritanism that are very American.

  3. From 2, boyfriend shares it with other boys, now it's potentially CSAM or at the least revenge porn of a child as she didn't consent and it could be used to harm her but punishment has to be modulated with the fact the offender is likely a child himself and not fully able to comprehend his actions.

  4. Underage boy cuts out photo of underage girl he likes, only her face and head, glues it atop a picture of a naked porn actress, maybe a petite one and uses it for his own purposes in private. Not something I think should be classed as CSAM.

  5. Underage boy uses AI to do the same as above but more believably, again I think it's kind of creepy but if he keeps it to himself and doesn't show anyone or spread it around it's just youthful weirdness though really he probably shouldn't have easy access to those tools.

  6. Underage boy uses AI to do same as 4-5 but this time he spread it around, defaming the girl, she/her friends find out, people say mean things about her, she has to go to school with a bunch of people who are looking and pleasuring themselves to fake but realistic images of herself against her consent which is violating and makes one feel unsafe. Worse probably being bullied for it, mean things, called the s-word, etc.

Kids are weird and do dumb things though unfortunately boys especially in our culture have a propensity to do things that hurt girls far more than the inverse to the point it's not even really worth talking about girls being creepy or sexually abusive towards peer-aged boys in adolescence and young adulthood. To address this though you need to address patriarchy and misogyny on a cultural level, teach boys empathy and respect for girls and women and frankly do away with all this abusive pornography that's super prevalent and popular which encourages and perpetuates abusive actions and mentalities towards women and girls, this will never happen in the US however because it's structurally opposed to being able to do such a thing. Also couldn't hurt to peel back the stigma and shame around sexuality and nudity in the US which stems from its reactionary Christian culture but again I don't think that will ever happen in the US as it exists, not this century anyways.

Obviously not getting into adults here as that doesn't need to be discussed, it's wrong plain and simple.

Bottom line I think is companies need to be strongly compelled to quickly remove revenge-porn type stuff (regardless of the age of the victim though children can't deal with this kind of thing as well as adults so the risk of suicide or other self-harm is much higher so it should be treated as higher priority) which this definitely is. It's abusive and unacceptable and they should fear the credit card companies coming down on them hard and destroying them if they don't aggressively remove it and ban it and report those sharing it. It should be driven off the clear-web once reported, there should be an image-hash data-set like that used for CSAM (but separate) for such things and major services should use it to stop the spread.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 20 points 4 months ago

So first it's client-side scanning for CSAM. Not without some nobility. But the problem is once you wedge open that door it's technically possible to do it for other things and so you become compelled to.

It'll move from just CSAM to stopping and tracking "propaganda" as deemed by them which will be narrow-ish at first (anything pro-Russia, RT links, etc) but gradually expand over time to anything outside the mainstream branded as extremist (and guess what, privacy advocates will definitely fall within that label). And once that's in place the private stake-holders, copyright holders will come knocking, they'll say rightly so "hey you have the capability right now, we demand you implement client-side scanning to detect copyright violations" and then that will be ordered by a court, further enshrined by a law and oh look now you can no longer send political thought that the ruling regime disagrees with, can no longer surf the high seas, and so on and so forth. Congratulations and please enjoy living in the "garden" of Europe.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 24 points 11 months ago

The venture capital dollars started running out. Returns started being demanded. Companies that made slightly improved and/or more accessible versions of more open products extinguished those products using venture capital dollars then started rolling out the enshittification, demands for money, intrusive ads, spying, dark patterns, sabotaging, paid tiers.

Back in those days the internet was a curiosity. A hobby. A fun thing to share, something a company might hope to break even on or earn minor profits with, these days big profits are demanded, centralization. Addiction to high resolution and size video and image content which is expensive to host and serve. The network effect drained smaller sites and resources, concentrating people in larger venues that had the investment dollars to support them at the cost of their privacy. Combine with search engine optimization and it became harder to even find smaller places. Add in digitally uneducated kids who thought fb and such were most of the internet and never bother to venture beneath the top 6 google results and older people and this is what you have.

Take something like Omegle. I don't want to defend what it was for most of its existence as the bad outweighed the good IMO (like 4chan) but something like that if made today would require linking your facebook or google account and serve you video ads every 5 minutes on top of banner ads. But back then it was just something some random guy could make for fun and not think "hmm I need real identities to monetize these people to ad networks to pay for this and turn a big profit selling the data they input".

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

House centipede. They eat other bugs and while scary looking are harmless. They like spiders appear from time to time without anything being wrong. They’re just looking for other bugs to eat.

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most useful unique website thing rarbg had by far was full mediainfo listing for every single upload on site. You could immediately tell what you were getting and even dead torrents became useful by virtue of retaining chapter data that could be applied to another release.

Also, call me skeptical but IMO without access to scene FTP’s or week-1 access to (and automation on a large scale of re-uploading from) cabal trackers like BTN to get the good content from your site frankly risks ending up just another mirror among many others like lime torrents for existing public net and low hanging private tracker fruit. (If you have mediainfo for all files that adds a lot of value though)

IMO the real need left by rarbg is not for more re-hosting of content many others have but for publishing web-dl’s others don’t have, not of just new series (which everyone does as ep’s drop) but older movies and older series without other good 1080p or 4k releases available. Even today I see many old TV series the only HD releases available are old rarbg packs and this includes across multiple of the biggest PT’s.

Of course I wish anyone willing to run a big general tracker luck (assuming they’re honest and intent isn’t to distribute malware ofc).

[-] Majestic@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 year ago

There were laws made around child actors because of the same issue. Sad it keeps coming up.

view more: next ›

Majestic

joined 1 year ago