here you go:

more can be found like this, @chichi__charlie in any good web browser

google tries not to kill one of it's products challenge (impossible)

the current solution for that would be similar to the current "sponsor block" plugins, here's an example

crowdsourced start and endpoints for embedded sponsorships

something like this tool, but for future embedded google adverts

good bot

the "open source hackers" are always going to win this one, for a simple reason. if the data of the youtube video is handed to a user at any point, then the information it contains can be scrubbed and cleaned of ads. no exceptions.

if google somehow solves all ad-blocking techniques within browser, then new plugins will be developed on the operating system side to put a black square of pixels and selectively mute audio over the advert each time. if they solve that too? then people will hack the display signal going out at the graphics card level so that it is cleaned before it hits the monitor. if they beat that using some stupid encryption trick? well, then people will develop usb plugin tools that physically plug into the monitors at the display end, that artificially add the black boxes and audio mutes at the monitor display side.

if they beat that? someone, someone will jerry rig a literal black square of paper on some servos and wires, and physical audio switch to do the same thing, an actual, physical advert blocker. i'm sure once someone works that out, a mass produced version would be quite popular as a monitor attachment (in a timeline that gets so fucked that we would need this).

if that doesn't work? like, google starts coding malware to seek and destroy physical adblockers? then close your eyes and mute your headphones for 30 seconds, lol. the only way google is solving that one is with hitsquads and armed drones to make viewers RESUME VIEWING

as long as a youtube video is available to access without restriction, then google cannot dictate how the consumer experiences that video. google cannot win this.

opinion time:

the truth is players don't lose all the time. companies setup the matches to deliver a 50/50 win loss ratio, because if they didn't do this, then some players would be losing all the time, these players would uninstall, and then they lose money because they can't sell boxes or whatever they push these days.

however, humans also experience losses worse than wins. the magnitude of a loss emotion is typically greater than an equivalent win emotion. we evolved like this to make sure you didn't lose your stash of food in the tree somewhere, or perhaps at the back of the cave - if you did, you died, and so those humans who preserved a sense of dread when experiencing loss were more likely to pass on their genetics. this is why playerbases constantly whinge and moan about being on the losing team - you are actually getting 50/50 win/loss, but your brain only pays attention to the losses, it doesn't remember the wins as well, and so your perception is distorted.

only in some rare brains is this emotion spread dampened - these rare humans are able to tank losses easily. it still feels bad for them, but they can take the hit way easier. these individuals are typically also the professionals in competitive ventures of all strokes. since society sees them as "elite", this is now seen as a good thing, even though in rougher times, you can't expect these people to give more than a cursory fuck about the food supply being lost to bears. it's one of the reasons why you see elite athletes constantly developing drug problems, catching rape charges, and going bankrupt. the loss just isn't as emotionally bad for them. they can tank it. it's not psychopathic, it's just... they have less aversion to losses.

anyway, if a game is equal, balanced and fair, then an overwhelming majority of the playerbase is experiencing more loss emotion than win emotion, on average. this undercurrent of loss emotion is the true cause of the "violent" part of "violent video games". it's not the shooting itself, it's the competition between players that festers these loss emotions, that then causes the aggression.

boomer legislators get this part mixed up and confused all the time, and so they speak reductively of the problem when they demand less bloodsplatter and gun imagery. what they don't get, is FIFA, Super Smash Bros, Rocket League etc, can also cause this horrible feeling, because they are competitive games. it's the competition that does it, not the violence. this is the true origin of toxicity in playerbases. no wonder DotA2 players always have 4000+ hours and say "i hate it, but lets go again". "just 1 more round" it sounds like drugs, doesn't it? "just 1 more bump brooo". "cmonnn, just 1 more".

solution: stop playing competitive matchmaking. it's not good for you, it's not healthy. you are feeding your brain a virtual drug. you are chasing the win, just like a gambler. stop feeding your ego, you don't need to be good at a game to feel valid. overwhelming chances are you don't have a "winner-style" competitive brain that will help you cope with loss emotions and truly let you enjoy comp/ranked games, so please stop trying. you're hurting yourself. "top" rank will never be worth your mental health. you have to let it go.❤️

sources: (loss emotion magnitude in dota2, pdf)[https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7348&context=etd].

(elite athletes found to be arrested far more frequently for DV and SA than non-athletes)[https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=honors]

(competitive games, not the "cosmetically violent" games, lead to aggression)[https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/video-games]

and lastly, my own personal experience dealing with this in 2018. most of this post is anecdotal, it's an opinion piece, and i don't care to back this up further.

yep i found this one out the hard way when applying for a job in the uk at currys (similar to best buy like in the op)

didn't get the job of course, that's fine, whatever, move on and go to next application

what i learnt afterwards though was that, they don't hire for currys/best buy based on your actual understanding of tech. they hire on your ability to sell the items, and help customers engage in excess consumerism.

the main point being, i obviously wouldn't sell anyone a $99 gold plated hdmi cable. because firstly, that's unethical profiteering, and secondly, i know that a $5 would do the same job. i would point a customer to the $5 cable, it's the correct choice. but this is why i am unhireable for this job.

currys, best buy, euronics, mediamarkt etc need to hire people that can sell the $99 cable. to do that, they counterintuitively have to hire people who don't know enough about tech. reason being, if you don't actually know about tech yourself, you will think that the gold cable is better, and you can then do a more convincing job of selling it. plausible deniability. apply this to every item in the store. you want someone who can push 8k tvs, beats headphones and smart fridges. not someone who will guide the consumer to what they actually need for their use case.

it's the reason why you go into these stores and the staff don't have a fucking clue about actual tech questions. they were hired precisely because they don't have a clue.

yeah this is exactly the point lol. 😅

it's so hard to escape out of the walled ecosystems because so much of our content is already written in these places, and so even if fediverse grows exponentially, it will still take at least a decade of content creation for "free/libre" content to outpace the old silos.

but we have to start now, to get to that future.

this comment is aimed at those future "just passing through" visitors, who are still on the fence with regards to the fediverse.

any internet power user will know, and be able to tell you that the internet feels wrong as of late. everything that you try to use is slightly broken for some reason. why is it becoming harder to use basic services that we took for granted 5 years ago?

unfortunately, the internet is changing once again, and it's time to pick a side.

you can side with big corpo, stay in their walled ecosystems, and embrace enshittification.

or, you can side with the fediverse, break out of your silo, and take control of your own means of content participation.

the choice is yours.

if you like following concepts or "things" (reddit-style), then try here: https://join-lemmy.org/

or, if you prefer following individuals or "trends" (twitter-style), then try here: https://joinmastodon.org/

The so-called “spy clause” in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which experts argued would have made end-to-end encryption all but impossible in the country, will no longer be enforced...

oh okay. so they're still going to pass it into law anyway, and then pinky promise not to enforce it. right... 🤦

california is the largest "sub-national" economy in the world. if california was a country, it would have the fifth largest economy. bigger than the uk, or bigger than india.

if i had to guess, the answer is "success breeds jealousy"

the issue put bluntly, is that in federation, your data cannot be 100% safe. even if this instance is secure and perfectly private, if this instance is then federated, that federated data can then be copied and have anything done with it, or to it.

or, to phrase it in a way that opened my eyes to this, quoting from someone else a month ago, "what makes you think you're in control of your data on any instance?"