YouTube premium actually has its own version of sponsorblock called skip ahead, it works really well, so they’re not ideologically opposed to skipping sponsored segments
That doesn't just target sponsor segments. It's for stuff commonly skipped. Like annoying parts of videos. Some video game guy I occasionally watching thinks he needs to sing for some reason, very useful for skipping those sections.
Sponsorships are the primary way YouTube creators make money. There aren't many things that could knock YouTube off its near-monopoly market position, but banning sponsorships is definitely one. Creators would revolt.
Creators are already starting to build their own platforms for hosting videos and many of these are quite successful unlike prior iterations from 10 years ago.
I would point to platforms like Curiosity Stream and Nebula, which are creator driven. Though I would not exactly call them Youtube replacements, as they are more just platforms designed for supporting specific creators more directly (akin to Patreon). These platforms are often advertised as in-video sponsorships, so going back to the original point, I do think creators would be very vocal if such ads were banned.
Where ? Like I have sponsor block on a desktop but on my pixel I don't have it and would like to have the option. Have the yt premium but don't see the option to skip sponsors.
If you double tap to skip 10 seconds during an ad read, it should appear as a button in the bottom right. It does not pop up proactively. It's algorithmically-based on which parts of the video get skipped most often by viewers.
Firefox for Android supports desktop extensions, including Sponsor Block and uBlock Origin.
There's also Tubular, a YouTube client and fork of NewPipe with Sponsor Block built-in. If you don't mind installing apks from outside the Play Store: https://github.com/polymorphicshade/Tubular
It isn't automatic for me unless I try to skip a sponsored segment myself, then it will kick in and skip me to the end of that segment with a popup above the scroll bar saying they did so.
I wonder if this is related to yellowing plastics? Retr0brighting with peroxide and sunbriting (putting yellowed plastics out in the sun) are already common treatments in the retro community. I’ll have to give it a try on some of my old hardware
This changes the best practice for retr0brighting from using UV or sunlight to 445nm blue LED. I already knew from anecdotes that sunlight seemed more effective than a UV lamp. People assumed it was the extra heat, which may or may not still be a contributing factor, but I guess it's the blue light prt of the sun's spectrum.
UV can trigger the chemical reactions within the plastics that yellow the plastics, but UV + peroxide does a different chemical reaction to bleach them.
This won’t require companies to keep servers running, just that they have an end of life plan, eg: releasing a version of the server that can be self hosted for multiplayer games
It is a valid concern as to why companies don't do this already. In the face of the legal requirements the initiative is attempting to establish, however, the IP problem would be pretty easily resolved, as companies that sold their server libraries/services with a prohibition on redistribution would either need to change those licenses, or lose customers who want to be able to sell in Europe.
How so? Or, more specifically, what method of action are you predicting will produce those outcomes?
From my observation, smaller studios are vastly more likely than larger ones to already be in compliance with this initiative's requests: It's not the giant, AAA games that are having community servers or peer-to-peer networking. Companies that are doing that already have to change nothing to be in compliance.
Studios that have private, monopolized backends merely need to release their server binaries at the end of life. That's not a significant expense, either (you already have access to file distribution in order to distribute your client in the first place). Assuming that the studio is paying directly for file distribution (not the case for most), and that the server binaries are 100 GB (an obscene over-estimate), and that every single user downloads the server files, you're looking at a couple of cents or so a user. Which again, smaller studios don't pay for file distribution, that's coming out of the platform fees that you're already paying.
The only hard and fast, "this might cost us money" position I can point to is the large studios that release franchises lose the ability to use cutting off people's access to previous games in a series as a motivator to purchase newer ones in the series. And that's an ability exclusively available to massive studios that put out entire franchises of games.
That does happen a lot. They get licenses to use but not distribute software for example. Servers are hard so it makes sense they'd want to buy rather than build.
It's the same reason most games aren't open sourced when their commercial viability ends: lots of third party software with no public source.
"If you want something done it, do it wrong first" is a personal favourite of mine from his videos. Think it was the video about wind tunnel testing of a scale model of his speed racer
Only the mk 5 supra (2020 onwards) has anything to do with BMW. Up until the mk 4 stopped production in 02 there had been 25ish years of purely Toyota Supra/Celica Supra
> The Garmin Connect app seems to be completely useless without the Garmin Connect servers being up. It is not even possible to see local data on the phone.
Not the case, I can see all the local data from my watch in the app and still sync the two, just missing cloud backups and online specific functionality
Are you sure about that? I have a Garmin Fenix 6 and the Connect app on Android. While it's true that all data is stored locally on the watch and it doesn't need to be tethered to a phone to work, I'm pretty sure that syncing the watch to the Connect app does require the Connect app to be connected to the server. I have experienced this multiple times, after completing a hike in a remote area and I try to sync the Hike Activity to Connect it fails due to not having a cellular connection despite the watch being connected to the phone via Bluetooth.
I could swear I've also gotten data sync's while in limited connectivity situations, but to be fair could be that occasionally it was just able to phone in enough to do its thing.
Service is back up, so just testing real quick, at least on IOS , turning off wifi/cellular (not airplane mode) - my fenix at least seems to still be streaming heart rate data to the app. Not entirely sure what else will update from local data though (if anything).
