Some chucklehead car review guy on YouTube is going to get their hands on one of these, put a Door Dash car topper on the roof and drive around town to see if anyone notices the $640k delivery vehicle. Few people will, and that's what's wrong: the entire point of Ferrari, for better or worse, going on 85+ years, is to get looks.
If all the people that have ever purchased a Ferrari for its interior design vanished today, there are so few it wouldn't make a headline. The Testarossa interior was so tragically bad it probably shouldn't have been permitted by the DOT et al. Yet there it was, plastered on posters and magazine covers; a thing of dreams around the world.
So only yet another case of complete disconnect between a brand and its loyalists. Not the first, and given the myopia plaguing such folk today, not the last.
This isn't possible on Youtube right now. The automatic tools for detecting LLM-generated content have far too many false positives. And obviously no one is going to pay an army of people to curate the content. The best thing right now is to rely on the reputation of individual channels that you are personally familiar with.
Youtube's automatically applied label will be worse than useless unless they've made some remarkable breakthrough, which I doubt. They'd be better off just using creator-applied labels, and of course if they would label anything that Youtube itself contaminated with automatic translations or its ilk, that would be good too.
Maybe they could hand out lifetime bans to people who upload untagged AI music? Obviously that wouldn't eliminate the problem, but I could see it helping.
Well, theoretically you could build a service providing blocklists, and users could subscribe to such blocklists with a browser extension blocking accounts. Basically Sponsorblock or Blocktogether for Twitter, with individual users flagging accounts for slopaganda, content theft, rage / engagement bait and other issues.
Unfortunately, it's way, way too likely that you'll run into some sort of bot detection on Youtube's side and I've seen more than enough horror stories about people getting fucked over and getting their entire Google account perma-banned with no way of recovery.
It's clear that YouTube doesn't want you to have much influence over your feed. You can't even ban specific channels from being shown to you, which would be the simplest thing to implement, and other knobs that previously existed were silently removed.
Since Google does nothing that isn't based on metrics, we can deduce that they have data to show that giving people settings to focus the recommendations on what they want reduces total watch time. We'll only get an AI filter if it turns out that AI slop offends people so much that they disengage with YouTube altogether, which outside of HN and similar bubbles, I don't yet see happening.
> You can't even ban specific channels from being shown to you
Yes, you can. Click the video's 3-dot menu > Don't recommend channel. Though I have noticed that this only blocks them from showing up in the feed, not in the recommendations sidebar. I also have to run uBlock to hide shorts, already-watched videos, subscriber-only stuff...ain't saying the YT experience is good, not by any stretch of the imagination.
You can click a button that makes a strong "suggestion" to the algorithim, which they will honor for as long as they feel like.
I went through this a few years ago when the channel of a large far right "news" broadcaster kept being jammed on my front page, and the best I could do was keep hitting the button and have it it "temporarily" be removed from my front page before it would inevitably show up again months down the line.
Perhaps it is not deliberate, and merely incompetence. Either way resolved on desktop with an addon because if I wanted to gamble, i'd go to a casino.
Yes, this is true. I did notice that a bunch of channels I knew I had blocked started showing up again, but in my case it took 2-3 years. If it only lasts months for you, it's much less useful.
Yeah, just let me hide all the AI content. Far too often I stumble onto something that looks interesting, and halfway through I realise it's not really saying anything. It's just AI drivel designed to capture my attention and hold it for a while.
You could stick a Door Dash car topper on the roof and few people would pick up on the joke. So the entire point of Ferrari is lost in this exterior design. Where are the wings and strakes and diffusers? It has a few holes, but sans that it's a slightly more swoopy two-tone Model 3.
I agree, but it's also a rather distinct device so if it were being intentionally confiscated by TSA as some of the upstream posters claim it'd be really easy for them to identify. If it were policy in any way, even the most basic object recognition systems attached to even a simple x-ray scanner could identify one with ease.
That's of course not to say some rogue agents haven't confiscated a few Flippers, especially after seeing hyperbolic media reports about them being magical evil hacker devices, but I have high confidence that there's no official policy to do so.
The instinctual reaction of Gloria Caufield when she got booed at UCF was to characterize the "issue" as "bipolar"; invoking mental health terminology. Schmidt called his AI future "democratization." Don't be antidemocratic, kids! Since then, the media narrative throughout the reporting has been about "anxiety" and "fear".
One might hope that folks can see the time-honored patterns here. This isn't new. It's just not frequently experienced by those that have earned degrees.
Someone already pointed out how the WSPR anecdotes fail for CB. The longwave reception argument is fallacy as well. There, you receive powerful signals with a poor, receive-only antenna; the typical asymmetric model of commercial broadcast radio (and cellular, for that matter.) With CB, both sides are low power. Legally, that is. And neither antenna is on a huge tower.
Several handheld CB radios exist, with little loaded whip antennas. You can go buy one. You'll see. They work for talking between two tractors in a field or whatnot. Past that, not so much. Today, you're better off with license free UHF handhelds for that use case.
I'll pursue this when "they" decide to get real and make this not suck. Until then, I have sufficient alternatives.
I appreciate the writeup. It convinces me that integrated KVM stuff ~~ except for fewer wires ~~ isn't much better than the mess that's prevailed for years now, and I'm not missing much.
Why does video input source switching suck so much?
Back in the old analog CRT days I could forgive the switching latency. With today's all-digital signal paths I feel like video input switching should be pretty close to instant.
Is the technology in a broadcast switcher really so exotic and expensive?
> Is the technology in a broadcast switcher really so exotic and expensive?
No. My characterization of the problem was precision flippancy; the demand for this is niche enough that optimizing for it is a low priority, so "they" simply don't. That failure is stack-wide; the specifications around display negotiation would need extension to manage the additional state necessary for the "agile" KVM use case, and then the hardware+firmware would need to exist and become cheap, somehow despite Imaginary Property laws, so that one could hope to find it in real products.
There is regulatory friction here as well: it would complicate power management. Not infeasibly so, but enough that unless a need appears of such import that it motivates people to dare to disturb that writhing ball of copulating tapeworms, it simply won't happen.
So don't hold your breath. Unless you're relatively young, you won't live to see it. More likely, some other paradigm will obviate the problem first.
I also have a $900 monitor (provided from work) which is also a built in kvm switch, and it can show two desktops, one HDMI/windows and one usb-c/mac, side by side or as an inset as well. There's no delay switching either.
It is supposed to hot-switch the inputs if I move the mouse to the edge, but it does not, I guess it's because one of them is HDMI.
I used to have a Lenovo dock that I used as a switch, but not anymore and there's definitely less clutter.
> we really need to see some benchmarks for things that matter
Honestly, we don't. We know it won't be competitive with the plethora of high performance ARM network SOCs found in commercial routers. If you use this with advanced features enabled (traffic shaping, packet inspection, etc.) on a fast uplink you will be CPU bound, and the CPU isn't fast. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that knows why this platform has any appeal.
You don't buy this expecting to max out your 10 Gbps fiber. There are other, valid reasons, but not that, and I'm glad it exists: one day, there will be RISC-V network SOCs that dominate benchmarks.
"So why isn't there this kind of stuff in routers?"
Specialized hardware is in routers. Typically, for this class of router, what you're buying is a highly specialized proprietary chipset and a stack of proprietary driver software that runs on a couple ARM cores. Most of the actual network activity is offloaded (switching, packet filter, cryptography, etc.,) and the software control plane just manages the proprietary hardware. The specialized hardware is why the thing can handle traffic at full rate in a compact box with little to no active cooling and a ~10W SMPS.
That doesn't exist in this router: it can't because no one has yet integrated a best-of-class hardware data plane with a RISC-V CPU+drivers and made it available to third parties for developing such devices. So nearly everything must be done by the CPU, and the CPU isn't all that fast.
If you'd like to learn about all this, have a look at Tomaž Zaman's YouTube channel and his development of an "open" router.
Some chucklehead car review guy on YouTube is going to get their hands on one of these, put a Door Dash car topper on the roof and drive around town to see if anyone notices the $640k delivery vehicle. Few people will, and that's what's wrong: the entire point of Ferrari, for better or worse, going on 85+ years, is to get looks.
If all the people that have ever purchased a Ferrari for its interior design vanished today, there are so few it wouldn't make a headline. The Testarossa interior was so tragically bad it probably shouldn't have been permitted by the DOT et al. Yet there it was, plastered on posters and magazine covers; a thing of dreams around the world.
So only yet another case of complete disconnect between a brand and its loyalists. Not the first, and given the myopia plaguing such folk today, not the last.
reply