It’s a bit odd, but isn’t it equivalent to forking and putting up a fork elsewhere?

I guess I don’t see the problem.

Use a timestamp link for now, if it gets a different time than requested, there’s an ad.

I’m sure some algorithm could be written to beat it. Still crappy overall but figured they’d do this sooner or later.

Sponsorblock, return YouTube dislikes and more customization.

In theory this could be beaten by using a link to a timestamp at 1 second in. If it starts at 0, it’s an ad.

SmartTube on TV, Revanced on my phone, and the first party website on my computer.

I pay for premium… but also like my sponsorblock… and 3rd party clients. Let me have it all momma Google.

IIUC it wouldn’t be able to be automatically started then, right? I mean I guess you could drag it to startup but it would need the password to start. From a security minded perspective that’s good, but from a user perspective kind of sucks. I already unlocked the computer: as a user id just want it to ‘work’.

There is always a tug of war between best level of security and user experience. I guess the best security is to get rid of the human element though… so eh.

Always forced to foreground makes it even less convenient and kind of odd. I dig the status tray control though. I don’t see this functionality as being useful if you have to remember to turn it on. If I remember what I was doing enough to turn it on, I’d write down what I’d forget. To me it’s about allowing the user to pick their comfort level.

I figure the cryptfs could be a bitlocker volume with a different key than the base C drives key to get similar protection. In theory it could also be based on the C drives bitlocker for a less secure, but still hardware level secured middle ground. Id have to think about it more.

The other stuff mentioned is basically what it does locally in terms of OCR and recognition… just with proprietary local recipes.

Thanks for your thoughts.

GDPR has little to do with this. People use site cookies to remember sessions and not have to login again, etc. I’d guess most browser users use and want to use this functionality. If you’re fully opting out to not even have persistent sessions, I’m guessing you’re in the far minority of users here.

I’m not aware of any non-trivial readily available built-in encryption for cookies. There are easy to find libraries that exist to just pull out cookies (stored locally including session tokens).

To clear up a bit more misinformation from your response: this is an offline feature. The data doesn’t go back to Microsoft. It works even if your computer is disconnected from the internet. If you consider their word to be a lie on this part, that’s you’re right to believe, but until proven, isn’t a fact.

I tend to agree with a lot of what is said here. Though it is (assuming they’re honest) local only to be clear.

If it was an opt in feature with robust configurations including encrypting the db based off your login session and was auto locked up on log off/reboot (until login again): is that good enough, or would folks then say we should assume the account is also compromised?

I’m trying to disambiguate between generalize ai dislike, Microsoft dislike, windows dislike, distrusts, etc. to consider a world where this exists in Windows and people who would use the feature would feel comfortable

In other words, consider an app that did the same thing. What security constraints would be expected?

So if they had a ui with buttons to ‘pause for X length (could be forever)’, buttons to 'forget last X length (once again could be forever), but everything else stayed the same, would it be acceptable?

Like I’m genuinely curious here.

Iirc chrome stores your local cookies/session in a place malware could also attack. Probably the same idea for other browsers.

I’m not sure I fully understand the issue here. If we’re ok with that info being trivially retrievable by a bad actor, why isn’t this ok?

Like I get you may not like it, and it’s a target, but there are already lots of targets that have gotten a pass based on user permissions. Is it just the breadth of potential info? With the cookies you could potentially log into someone’s bank account.

Full pls… in color

I’ll take one pdf of this video please.

Really rolls of the tongue

Would be cool if Google search indexed public discord servers.

Say hello to Miguel Sanchez.

In their defense, advertisers weren’t seeing those same people.

I remember seeing a startup at one point that wanted to put mini-CDNs in people’s homes. Small black boxes that would automatically be a CDN not just for your home, but the whole area. Of course, sites would have to use their CDN network, etc.

I actually thought it was a really interesting idea. Almost like federated CDNs.

Imagine if every Xfinity router has a built-in 16TB CDN: it would be an interesting way to possibly change how bandwidth works and makes it back to the DCs. Most popular stuff would be closer, faster.

The problem is the term quality would be used to block out certain creators. The definition would wind up being vague and/or arbitrary.

What one person thinks is quality may not be quality to someone else. In a way that’s a niceness of YouTube. We can each upload what we think is good… or bad.

Even then if a video goes big viral (which is arguably something a creator may want), the bandwidth costs could skyrocket.

Then it’s like: maybe we need CDNs and more storage and boom now it’s even more expensive. I just don’t see fediverse video working great long term without big money to back it.

Makes me miss a time where they couldn’t tell if ads were actually watched or not.

Sooner or later, ad blockers should just simulate the ad being played (in the background) with the real content going in the foreground to act as if the ad was watched.

Kind of like going to the bathroom during commercials.

Then again I wish we had a real alternative to YouTube. (Don’t point me to the fediverse video stuff … that’s not what I mean.) There is no real competition for a place to freely upload videos … or on the other side find all that content. No one wants to scale enough to compete. (Very few probably could considering the amount of new content per minute).

If only there was real competition, then YouTube would have to fight over our attention/usage by lowering ad count.

No competition means worse for all.