This used to be the only reason, however in the last couple years we’re starting to see streaming services remove their original programming (owned and produced by themselves/their parent or affiliate studios). Seemingly just so they don’t have to pay more in royalties.
Obviously it doesn’t apply to .com or .xyz, but in addition to the concerns about being locked in to Cloud flare’s name servers, they don’t support some gTLDs right now.
From what I’ve read this Marcel LUX III SARL company is also just a holding company under EQT. So nothing major has changed there.
I mean, Canonical is also privately held and not publicly listed. And it looks like this is the same private equity firm that owned SUSE fully before taking them public. (Marcel LUX III SARL is a holding company owned by EQT Private Equity.)
Because they’re a disorganized clusterfuck and he couldn’t be bothered to slightly delay filming to get the proper card. Because for whatever reason they’ve decided they must churn out content at such a high pace that everything they do is like this now.
Honestly the only videos from the last year where I remember things not being totally jank were videos with Emily, but she’s barely been in anything since coming out a few months ago.
Tbh that’s how almost all of their projects seem to be now. Woefully unprepared, full of jank.
It’s true that would be the ideal way to go about this. However, I’m also weighing that vs Linus saying this should’ve been handled privately (which implies off the record).
The last time something like this happened it was made clear GN was going to cover LMG as the corporation it is, not as an individual where you might hash things out privately first.
It’s been clear for quite a while that they’ve focused only on growth/expansion with more channels, the lab, so many new employees, etc and at the same time you can see the sloppiness getting worse with lack of preparation, lack of quality control to meet deadlines, etc.
The Billet Labs thing is absolutely inexcusable. Shitting on the product despite LMG being the one responsible for not even having the correct GPU for it, giving it a bad review, then doubling down when called out over a couple hundred bucks of time? The auctioned off prototype is so much worse as well. Not sure of the Canadian terms but in the US it’d potentially be theft by conversion. Literally sold someone else’s property. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and accept it as an accident, it seems like more evidence of whoever is running their logistics department being incompetent IMO.
If it’s not that feature, it’s likely either memory tuning or battery optimization stuff. Some phone manufacturers set those values to levels that are more aggressive than they really need to be, leading to processes being terminated in the background when they ideally shouldn’t.
Yes I’m sure it’ll be plagued by technical problems, and obviously the privacy implications.
As for opting in – that depends on whether this is approved as a method and then who adopts it and whatever they decide. Unless they’re brain dead there will need to be a process for failures, so that could conceivably apply to people who opt out as well
Okay, so this isn’t a new law or regulation. This is the ESRB and a couple companies requesting approval for a new method of providing verifiable parental consent to be acceptable to use for the purpose of satisfying COPPA’s existing requirements. From what I can find, the current approved methods of verifying parental consent appear to be:
submitting a signed form or a credit card
talking to trained personnel via a toll-free number or video chat
answering a series of knowledge-based challenge questions
Instead this would be handing the device to a parent, they snap a selfie and it gets analyzed for age estimation to determine if the person providing parental consent is an adult.
Good or bad, too invasive, idk, not really making a judgement there myself. I’d imagine the companies want this so they don’t have to have as many trained personnel and it’s probably less likely to be a barrier to consent as compared to putting in a credit card, talking to someone, or answering whatever knowledge-based challenges they use.
I don’t think it should be reserving 8GB in any case.
Edit: plus it’s a Ryzen 2600. No iGPU.
When did the issue start? Did you install new RAM? Are both the new sticks identical or of mixed make? A new CPU? Did you unseat and reseat the CPU or anything before this started?
You tried different RAM? Was it properly addressed or no? Did you try the current or different RAM stick by stick to verify each one is working on its own and then in the recommended slots as per your motherboard manual?
These steps/questions are necessary to determine whether the issue is a bad memory stick, something funky going on with the memory controller wrt slots, timings, combination of different modules, etc, or even the possibility of a defective memory controller or a bent/broken pin on the CPU.
That looks like a snippet the system properties menu in Windows. It’s detecting all of the RAM but it isn’t that only 7.92GB is free – rather only 7.92GB is capable of being addressed, due to something going wrong.
That’s not a free vs used thing, that’s a message from the OS that it can’t be addressed, so something is wrong with the configuration.
So you’re saying commenters are jerks - which is out of his control - then you speculate that you “wouldn’t be surprised if he has changed for the worst”
Not who you’re responding to, but despite it being “out of his control”, it still greatly diminishes my desire to watch the videos, to chat in live streams, or otherwise engage.
Antitrust suits result in more varied options than just breaking a company up. Microsoft had to have certain aspects of it’s operations supervised by the Department of Justice for years, and had to make mandatory changes with respect to browser bundling that only ended with Windows 10/11.
Intel has settled some antitrust actions – namely lawsuits by AMD – with money and cross-licensing agreements. They’ve spun off some divisions and operations over the years but none forced that I can recall.
Depends on what you mean. It’s a more arduous process – but even if this injunction were granted that process would still play out unless Microsoft just decided to give up. But in another sense it’s not as high of a bar to reach as a preliminary injunction, which the court by process has to make certain assumptions with a presumptive bias towards the party not seeking the injunction.
Because there’s sales text in the “educational” article.