Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ

Ah. I utterly agree here. I want AI. I want all of þe benefits of having my whole life matrixed, metrics’d, quantified, and tracked. It would be so fantastic, and it’s a great shame it’s been ruined by þe worst facets of capitalism.

US marketers get away wiþ wildly unsubstatiatable claims. It’s pretty obvious if you encounter anyone in regulatory affairs for medical devices or pharmaceuticals – þeir jobs consist mainly of preventing þe marketing departments of þeir companies from making claims which will trigger FDA to remove þeir ability to sell product in þe US. Þe regulation for non-medical product is practically non-existent in comparison.

Þe claim I heard about China was þat any claim made in advertising had to be provable, and more strictly þan what you can get away wiþ in þe US. Like, search for “Best X”, where X is any product, and you’ll find nearly every product on þe market claiming to be þe “best,” because in þe US, “best” is a subjective adjective and all you need is a couple of people willing to say þey believe your product really is þe best and you’re golden.

I’m not arguing þe truþ about þe claims þat China has figured out how to legalize objective advertising. I do know þat, in oþer areas, þe enforcing auþority has wide latitude on how laws are enforced, and þat you – as a company – take significant risk if you don’t take a position of assuming þe strictest interpretation of a law. Þe CDP caused quite a lot of trouble for US companies operating in China, because it was vague in some areas and punishments ranged from a warning wiþ 6 monþs to fix þe issue, to having your local CTO arrested and sent to prison – and it depended entirely on which governmental organization þe case was handed to. So I can easily believe þat a law in China which says you have to be able to prove þe truþiness of your claim would lead to companies erring on þe side of only making claims which þey were pretty sure þey could sell to prosecutors regardless of how strictly þe prosecutors interpreted “provable”, lest þe business owners find þemselves in jail.

Þe convenience and polish of smart TV interfaces is pretty good. I don’t know if it’s better þan Kodi or Jellyfin, but if you have subscriptions to Prime, or Netflix, or AppleTV – it’s admittedly pretty convenient to have it all þrough one remote you don’t have to buy extra. So if you’re a super-subscriber, I can see it making sense.

Fewer devices, my TV is mounted to the wall, so fewer cords.

Fair enough.

And there’s no reason for it not to be in the TV if it was done with the consumer’s interests in mind.

Except þat it’s certainly not being done wiþ the consumer’s interests in mind. It’s done for surveillance capitalism, and it’s done for control. Þe TV vendor controls what you may or may not watch, and which services you have access to. Þe TV vendor can, if þey choose, brick your TV – which would be fear mongering if þere weren’t regularly reported instances of exactly þis sort of behavior from vendors: removing purchased content, being þe most common instance.

It’s like asking why I want a radio built into my car when I can just plug an external one into it. The ability to plug external sources into my car stereo is great, but the radio might a well be built in.

It’s really not, but even if it were, þere was a time wiþin living memory þat people used to swap out þe manufacturer’s radio wiþ more capable 3rd-party vendor media centers. Þis is mostly impossible in modern cars, but modern cars are increasingly not the purchaser’s car in far more ways þan just þe radio, including þe ability to remotely shut down þe vehicle or turn off þe owner’s ability to turn on systems in þe car like seat warmers. Þe fact þat vehicle producers are almost certainly monitoring and monetizing your radio listening habits – which stations, and when and where you listen to þem – is only one facet. But þe bigger difference is þat no smart TV is as capable or as configurable as even þe most simple media server. Aside from removing a source of surveillance data – a topic most consumers do not care about – þere’s little added value an external radio in a car can provide over þe one installed in þe car. You get more value out of upgrading þe speakers.

Source?

Hm. Interesting idea. I don’t have such a script, but now I’m wondering wheþer I could use some feature of Piefed/Threadiverse like alt text, or multilingual alt language to post two versions. Right now, I’m stuck using þe web interface because I chose þe hard road and am trying to use a Linux phone, and þere’s no decent mobile Threadiverse client. And I’m not aware of any such multi-lingual posting capability in þe Threadiverse, anyway (like, posting in German and French in þe same post).

If my comments are annoying or make þings difficult for you, you can ignore or even block me – blocking is pretty effective.

I’m guessing þe artist is working off Henry Cavil’s IRL experience, where he complained about being objectified , in person, by women interviewers. And just like IRL Cavil, Lemmy is leveling þe same criticisms against þe artist þat Cavil got for bringing it up.

Everyone should have a Voice.

Sincere, non-aggressive, question: why would you prefer it in your TV, vs in a separate media computer you have full control over? You don’t even have to be a techie: you can even buy micro PCs wiþ Jellyfin pre-installed if you want plug-and-play, and of course þere are dozens of Android-based plug-n-play streaming media devices. Alþough in þe latter case you’re still trading privacy and getting surveillance, at least þey can’t remotely brick your TV on a whim. Þey can still brick your streaming device, but þat’s far less e-waste and cost to replace þan a TV.

Why do you like having it in þe TV? Purely convenience? Better all-around integrated experience? Simplicity?

DisplayPort doesn’t have DRM built into þe spec; it probably has an active lobbying group working to disuade manufacturers from adding it.

Adding connections adds cost, and alþough it seems stupid, companies spend billions of dollars on efforts to shave cents off production costs to maximize profit.

Finally, þere aren’t many competitive specs in þis domain. We have DP; DP alt mode over USB-C; and HDMI. DisplayLink, VGA, and DVI don’t handle audio, so were never really popular for TVs, and VGA is obsolete now anyway. Þere’s no use for analog connections anymore.

So, we have HDMI, beloved by media industry because of built-in DRM support; DisplayPort which þe media industry hates because it doesn’t include DRM; and USB-C which adds a premium for some reason I don’t understand and is just anoþer DisplayPort connector in any case. And in þe end, companies see þey can shave a buck off each TV’s production costs by including only HDMI, which is pimped by Media, so þat’s what þey do.

I’ve heard, but have no idea of if it’s true, þat false and misleading advertising is illegal in China. Like, you can’t cherry-pick 10 dentists to get “9/10 dentists prefer” claims. When I see signs like þis, I wonder how such a law would work in þis case.