AmazonPrime video does not delivers HD content in Linux... I tried everything switching browsers, changing User agent, wine, running virtual box. I seems some type of DRM is not implemented yet in Linux. Netflix is the same I think.
That's one reason I use it. If they switch to nazi DRM I'll drop them. If Disney won't play on Linux meh whatever then on them. I'm sure they won't miss me, and I won't miss them much either.
Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it.
FWIW I've had varying luck on Amazon; I think it's based on the publisher of the content. Some of Amazon's own stuff works in 1080 on my machine while other movies are much lower quality
Changing the UA to Firefox windows works too. I always get the "best" stream. Also prime music does not work on Chrome/Firefox on Linux solely because they've blacklisted the UA. I keep yelling at them every 2-3 months
Rewriting one of my earlier comments:
I have used Tinder (owned by Match) before and it was one of the must frustrating experiences ever.
First, they do shady things with your data. Since I made a Tinder account I been getting constant ads for random dating sites. This have been going on for months. God knows how many companies now have my data.
Second, they employ dark patterns:
1) Easy account deletion. Why does that matter?
Because they own nearly all dating sites. Including:
"BlackPeopleMeet.com, Chemistry.com, Delightful, FriendScout24, HowAboutWe, Match.com, Meetic Group, OkCupid, OurTime, People Media, PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Twoo, Hinge" So, they don't care if they lose a user as long as they can shuffle them around.
2) They will keep a tab of the number of users who have like you. Then eventually that user will shown to you and you will swipe left or right. In that case the tab count will decrease. This is a complete scam. They would withhold these users to push to a pay subscription. Example: https://i.redd.it/e13yeek795x21.jpg . Moreover, most of these likes a bots and fake profiles.
4) Shadows-bans: I saw that my profile was getting no matches. So I made a new profile, ban! a match within minutes. Essentially they shadow ban users as a form of Neg.
They changed it so swiping left on someone who liked you no longer decreases the like counter
Also before that if you were out traveling the likes you got while on the road will not show up in your stack when you leave the area where you got them
Also if you swipe left on someone and you’re in their stack and they swipe right on you, they’ll show up in the count
The rest is still super scummy, but the “rules” of the like counter are at least somewhat logical
I've used tinder in the past, and I remember there were recommendations online to completely delete your account and start from scratch from time to time if you suddenly found yourself unsuccessful, to get around potential shadow bans or just having fallen in a pit of the algorithm.
Do you happen to know if that was a valid strategy, and if it still is?
I always wondered if it was/is actually possible to completely reset your data, considering they have pretty strong links to you like payment information.
It is, but you should use a new name/profile pic combo to get around the algorithm re-slotting you into your old position. Ideally you'd only use your first name, a couple of new pics and don't link any other account so they can't track you(if you must - make a new instagram/spotify to link)
Regarding 4, I don't think that is necessarily a shadow ban. AFAIK Tinder will sometimes surreptitiously give you a boost, the huge one being when you create a new account, and subsequently when you change areas, and probably a few other triggers
To be fair on the last part, shadow ban can be an extremely efficient moderation tool, though for people caught up as false positive collateral damage it can really suck.
This is true even in hackernews I would assume, certainly it is any other place I've moderated before.
When an account is established, we usually tell people we're banning them and why. Shadowbanning on HN is mostly for new accounts that show signs of either spamming or trolling. You're right, though, that there are still false positives in such cases, and those suck.
"Shadowbanning on HN is mostly for new accounts that show signs of either spamming or trolling."
You routinely shadowban people you disagree with. Or post-limit them. You don't get to act innocent here when I guarantee you're just as guilty of these dark patterns as every other site.
> You routinely shadowban people you disagree with
We don't ban people we disagree with. If we did, hardly anyone would be left unbanned.
As for shadowbanning, the practice is as I described it: if the account is established, we tell people we're banning them and why (your account was an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15615092). If an account is new, different rules apply: we (meaning some combo of software and moderators) have to make a guess about whether the account is legit or not. If the guess is that they're spamming or trolling, we shadowban the account. We guess wrong sometimes, but we do what we can to correct those cases. And we're always happy to unban anyone who gives us reason to believe that they'll follow the site guidelines in the future.
Rate limiting is a separate issue. If an account posts too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or gets involved in flamewars, we rate limit how much they can post in the future. It's annoying and crude, but it's one of the few software tools we have to prevent comment quality from degenerating too quickly. Again, people are welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and we take the rate limit off if they commit to not repeating that behavior. It's not hard to get an account unbanned or unpenalized if you really want to use HN as intended.
"It's not hard to get an account unbanned and/or unpenalized if you really want to use HN as intended."
For the most part, I DO use HN as intended, IN SPITE of your shadowbanning. You just refuse to read my posting history to see that much.
This clearly shows I have more integrity than you, as you won't dare unhide any of my decent comments, instead preferring to make yourself look the victim by only unbanning my comments which you can unban to make me look bad. You're the real issue here, not me.
Yep, having used Tinder's paid boots and seeing no results. And then making a new profile with the same photos and bio! and getting results within minutes left me feeling rob and manipulated.
> 1) Easy account deletion. Why does that matter? Because they own nearly all dating sites. Including: "BlackPeopleMeet.com, Chemistry.com, Delightful, FriendScout24, HowAboutWe, Match.com, Meetic Group, OkCupid, OurTime, People Media, PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Twoo, Hinge" So, they don't care if they lose a user as long as they can shuffle them around.
This sounds like something the CCPA was trying to change.
I would advice most people to stay away from online dating. Especially if you social anxiety or low self esteem. Why would you place the chances of finding love in the hands of a corporation?
In the case of tinder here is why:
After I sign up tinder I started getting constant ads. These ads have followed me for months, to this day. Here is the most recent example: https://imgur.com/a/IJFCG0m.
Most dating apps are owned by a single company Match group. They own for example: BlackPeopleMeet.com, Chemistry.com, Delightful, FriendScout24, HowAboutWe, Match.com, Meetic Group, OkCupid, OurTime, People Media, PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Twoo, Hinge. In fact, tinder's delete account button is very conveniently placed. They don't care if you delete your account... as long as they can shuffle users around. The match group itself is owned by an even bigger corporation IAC. It owns about 150 brands worldwide. For example: TripAdvisor, Expedia, Ask.com, The Daily Beast, About.com, Dictionary.com, Investopedia, among many others.
I have a hard time believing that Tinder have any incentives to make you find date. Why would they do that? You will quit the app and they will stop making money!
I believe they use a lot of dark pattern to try to sell stuff. Here in an example: https://i.redd.it/e13yeek795x21.jpg. When I used tinder they keep the notification "there is someone that like" but they would actually show me the person. Another example of the dark patterns: https://i.redd.it/r0lheira9rh31.jpg. They also shadow-ban users among many other things.
With Quora I learned how real filter bubbles are. During the 2016 elections I used to click on a lot of anti-trump questions. The site painted me a picture that trump was a "joke" and that he no one seriously believe he had a "chance". I was genuinely chock he started winning the primaries.. and then the elections. Looking back I still can't believe that I was so out of touch with reality. I haven't use Quora since them.
Nowadays I actively try to ignore Quora when it shows up in search result. But when don't the answers are often short and wrong, or blatant self promotion.
For what it's worth, despite the very strong liberal bias on Quora, (I worked for Quora 2012-2014), they tried very hard to reduce bias from their feed algorithms and tried to remain very neutral in rankings and distribution.
I think there was a conservative chilling effect that went above and beyond what they could have done to help.
This type of tax incentives should be illegal. A lot of people argue that NYC still benefits from this deal, but we should not be thinking at a city level. But a country level, does the country benefits from this? No.
Has these type of incentives been illegal, Amazon would have to pick a city from the US and the overall US economy would be 1.5 billion richer.
The problem with incentives is that presents a "prisoner dilemma" to cities. And overall drives taxes down.
I don't understand this system at all. Only 1 in 200 Phd student ends up becoming a professor, yet in college we have classes of 200-250 students per professor. And some of the older professors have been teaching the same class for many many years, without attempting to change the material.
They are just repeating the stuff the already know, over and over again. It seems for me a waste of human resources, for me, to put some of the smartest people in to such repetitive task. Instead, I think the hiring bar for academia positions should be lower, the classes should be smaller, and the student should receive more customize experience.
I found this whole competition for Amazon absurd. Lets think about the prisoner dilemma:
If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)
Now A, B are cities and the can compete(betray) or not compete(stay silent). If they both compete (1th case) is the worst outcome because Amazon does not need a tax break or incentives. It's one of the richest companies in world already!
A competes, B does not (2th case). Good for city A because they can offer an small incentive an still get Amazon, bad for city B.
A and B do not compete. Good for both as the overall economy of the country would improve.
Exactly, these cases are outliers. Yet so many people fail to realize that. Take for example kidnapping, which is the 1th worry for parents, yet in the real world it fall 5000th of the threats to children (by close relative), by stranger I don't think even makes it to the list. The real threat are car crashes, suicide, and drowning which are 1th, 2th and 3th I think. The same think applies to "terrorism", it would be much more efficient to apply the resources to other causes. I think this whole "war on terrorism" and "war on drugs" if just fear mongering that politicians use to try and get elected.
I happily pirate content now.