I'm surprised they didn't mention turning off closed captioning, because understanding the dialog is less important than experiencing the creator's intent.
Incidentally, that's the reason why I love photography in Nolan's movies: he seems to love scenes with bright light in which you can actually see what's going on.
Most other movies/series instead are so dark that make my mid-range TV look like crap. And no, it's not an HW fault, as 500 nits should be enough to watch a movie.
I have some *arrs on my server. Anything that comes from Netflix is bitstarved to death. If the same show is available on virtually any other streaming service, it will be at the very least twice the size.
No other service does this.
And for some reason, if HDR versions of their 1080p content are even more bitstarved than SDR.
YouTube does this. When I open a video the quality is set to Auto by default. It'll also show the "actual" quality next to it, like "Auto 1080p". Complete lie. I see this and see the video looks like 480p, manually change to 1080p and it's instantly much better. The auto quality thing is a flat out lie.
My LG oled will go darker by itself during prolonged dark scenes, its not noticeable (other than that you can't see anything and you're not sure if its correct or not) until you get to a slightly brighter scene, can get it to stop for a bit by opening a menu.
Could barely tell what was going on, everything was so dark, and black crush killed it completely, making it look blocky and janky.
I watched it again a few years later, on max brightness, sitting in the dark, and I got more of what was going on, but it still looked terrible. One day I'll watch the 'UHD' 4k HDR version and maybe I'll be able to see what it was supposed to look like.
We have an OS security update that is only release to users of a specific hardware, once approved by their mobile operator. It may be added to vendor-specific OS versions some time later (weeks, month or never). The vendor-specific may not be approved by a telco if the vendor doesn't have a relationship with that telco.
Now think that millions of people use the same OS on many different flavours, on different hardware, on multiple operators.
Is this true for updates that might affect the way it interacts with the network (eg baseband firmware updates)? I assume it's much easier for iPhones to decouple that layer from the rest of the OS, which isn't the case for Android/Linux.
Nope. When a new iOS update comes out, all supported devices may immediately install the update if they seek it out. Or it will usually auto update on its own, or at least nag the user to update.
It’s gotten slightly more confusing with the major updates now being optional. You get a choice between getting a feature update or just security patches. Unless I missed it, my phone never really asked me to update to the latest iOS 26. But I can, it’s there. I’m instead on the latest version of iOS 18. (They changed number schemes. 18 is last years major update)
Apple also does security updates for quite a long time. iOS 15, from 2021, got a security patch in September of this year, and works on the iPhone 6s from 2015.
The evil ones are the people that put out the welcome mat for great caravans of immigrants, then looked the other way or even threw them out of their community when they arrived in their backyard.
Such people were great humanitarians when the immigrants were staying close to the border. That changed quickly when the first bus arrived at Martha’s Vineyard.
The truly evil ones are the NIMBY crowd, when they were the welcoming crowd for somebody else’s back yard.
Because we know who design, built and allowed this to happen
But your statement not only shifts the blame to some disconnected group, it absolves the only people with direct action from the guilt associated with it
The immigrants that were sent to Martha’s Vineyard were immediately escorted elsewhere, under care of the National Guard. ( Money can do those sort of things. )
The desire to house immigrants often seems to apply to locales removed from the ‘good people’ espousing the immigration.
The truly evil ones are the hypocrites that want to seem virtuous, but don’t want to do any of the messy part themselves. The people who realistically say they don’t want to make the necessary sacrifices are only being honest, not evil. It seems very few people really want a great bunch of immigrants in their own back yard.
Just as easy as you can live in a wealthy enclave, far from the messy logistics of processing immigrants while virtue signaling that the unfortunate hosts are bad people for saying ‘slow down’. The level of entitlement is appalling.
Just exactly where do you propose the immigrants should live? Designated places far from the nice, wealthy enclaves?
When the immigrants become self-sufficient, locations of their choosing are ideal.
When the immigrants are not yet self-sufficient, it seems best to avoid large populations in concentrated areas. ( This brings overwhelmed schools, healthcare systems, and other shared infrastructure, to the disadvantage of both the immigrants and the citizen population.)
>Just exactly where do you propose the immigrants should live? Designated places far from the nice, wealthy enclaves?
They live where they can afford, just like everyone else. Flying/busing people to some random neighborhood is nothing more than a political stunt at the expense of the lives these politicians are toying with.
You're complaining about alleged hypocrisy of Martha's Vineyard finding places for people who were literally sent away from Texas as a political stunt. They were dropped off by one-way chartered flights, with no real destination, on an island with a small tourist economy where supplies basically arrive by boat. And then you're feigning outrage from the government having to get involved to provide them shelter and services!
There might have been a legitimate point if Tiny DickSantis had found them places to stay (paid or otherwise), but yet they were made to move on. But the only things you're demonstrating are your needs to stop being so gullible and to examine your own filter bubble.
Here is a speech about illegal immigration from President Obama. He describes the problems caused by excess immigration. He also describes how he was stepping up efforts to stop illegal immigration and to deport those already over the border.
Do you think Obama was wrong, and was he evil in your eyes? Remember, he used ICE exactly the same way Trump is using ICE. ICE leadership is even the same team Obama used.
It’s providing context. To understand DeSantis’ motivation, you have to understand the context.
Biden had sharply changed direction from what prior administrations had done, including Obamas. Biden did not only fail to secure the border ( he claimed only Congress could do that, which Trump definitively disproved ), but he even sold off materials being used to build the border. Remember the huge caravans of immigrants arriving and passing through the border? Governors of states most affected were doing their best to protect their constituents.
Biden would not listen to reason. He continued to defy precedent and logic ( again, completely reversing Obamas actions ). He needed a wake up call.
That’s why DeSantis did what he did. The people of Martha’s Vinyard played perfect stooges, using the National Guard to move the immigrants out of their back yard immediately.
Now for you. Was Obama evil for doing what every other president except Biden did? Were the people that voted for Obama evil?
Sorry no, you don't get to dredge up "context" of something bad someone else did to set an emotional stage of urgency for justifying another bad thing. That is how we get a race to the bottom where things keep getting worse and worse, as half of the useful idiots cheer it on at any given time.
FWIW I did not vote for Obama either time. If you want to talk about the evil things that he did, a much easier starting touchstone is the extrajudicial drone assassinations.
Also FWIW I don't have strong feelings on the actual immigration issue here! If people were being arrested in an orderly fashion based on good faith investigation per case, by officers with public identities and systems of accountability, given due process opportunity to possibly show they are a citizen or otherwise here legally, held in clean humane conditions, with all of this publicly documented to show the whole process was above board - I'd have very little problem! The problem is exactly the manner in which this is being done - masked paramilitary gangs wholesale assaulting civil society in American cities, using some God-knows-what dowsing rod app to scan people and declare them uncitizens (thereby not worthy of human rights), then being disappeared from interested people (eg family, attorneys), and held in concentration camps or shipped off to foreign countries. This destroys the rule of law and Constitutional rights for all of us. And if you really can't understand this, then you need a crash course in individual Liberty to get your head screwed on quick. The way I see it, the immigration issue is essentially just a pretext.
Well, some of what you have written is agreeable to me.
Remembering that Obama built the steel cages for immigrants, I believe you are not placing blame only on the present administration. I find that fair.
FWIW, the ACLU takes a similar stance. They condemn Trump strongly, and condemned Obama just as strongly. I find no fault with their reasoning there, either.
I'm placing blame on the present administration for its presently ongoing actions, which could be stopped in the present. There's little reason to talk about Obama unless we're doing some detached post-mortem about the slow process of our country being destroyed. But as to the present actions - even if you want to characterize them as part of a slow slide longer arc, that still implies that the current incarnation is the worst yet.
From the screenshot "...if they are open source, we support them. Regardless of their political stances outside of their alignment with us in increasing the adoption of open source" (NRP).
"If approved, an individual must make a gift of $1 million, which has been determined to provide sufficient evidence that the individual will substantially benefit the United States."
reply