That’s not what is surprising.

Gaming under emulation is not exactly easy stuff even under optimal conditions, when your drivers and userland are not experimental/hacks and you are running on the same architecture - try doing AAA gaming on Linux using a windows VM and you will see.

Setting aside gaming for a moment, cross-architectural emulation is stupidly slow because it cannot use any hardware features, it’s all software work on the cpu. Do you have a Linux machine? Try downloading a Firefox binary for another architecture (aarch64 for example) and run it, try watching a youtube video, if you haven’t died of old age in the meantime. Now Apple has this rosetta magic thing to emulate x86, but it was never meant to run (and it was never used before) on bare metal Linux.

Now what happens here is that there is a vm that runs a vm of a different architecture (arm 64k vs arm 4k) that runs another vm of different architecture (x86), and somehow you can game on it with competitive performance. All of it with a dnf install.

Simply put, this is unheard of.

So arm 16k emulates arm 4k which emulates x86, and somehow the performance is great. I am without words.

I’m considering it too and I don’t even like survival or horror games, let alone the two.

Niiiice I’ve been using freecad a lot since I got a printer and these two things were really annoying me, looking forward so much

The German people, as a people, started as the unification of the Germanic tribes. The unified tribe called itself the tribe of all men, Alle Männer in modern German. The history of those times is narrated by romans and Greeks so we have a romanised version of that name, alamanni.

That was exactly my point. Blocking instances because “that way my content can’t be seen there” doesn’t make sense, because it’s trivial to bypass it. Yes, even a screenshot will do the job if nothing else, so why talk about protocols in the first place?

Somebody (maybe you maybe not, can’t check while replying) said that blocking instances was useful so that “my content doesn’t get seen / shared / pushed / etc to people and instances I don’t want”. That doesn’t make sense because of the line above. If you need clarification on who are those people and what are those instances ask them, not me.

I hope I’m somehow conveying my message. If there is a subtlety in the subject that I didn’t catch feel free to help me understand.

And what’s stopping these people and these instances from spreading that content using just the publicly available link? Instead of just clicking “share” they’ll have to open an anonymous browser window and copy paste the link from there, the horror!

Isn’t “protecting content” on a public platform kinda moot?

If people working at big companies had spare time, now that would be fantastic

Source: ex Amazon developer

Sure but then the recommendations would be based on a snapshot of my watch history and would not evolve further, which kind of defeats the purpose

I feel you (or your family). Call me whatever you want but I really like the algorithm, I get exposed to so much stuff I wouldn’t otherwise. 90% of my subs are channels I found through YouTube suggestions.

The missing recommendations for me is the main reason why I’m still using youtube instead of freetube, that and watched videos being synchronised across devices.

In the time before ubo fixed the popup I would browse yt on the browser, get recommendations and copypaste urls into ft.

For me it’s multi account containers.

The way I intend client-side is that ideally the client would have the CP hashes built in and would only trigger on a hash match, that is, when it’s 100% sure that your picture is ID’d.

The problem I have is that if it’s server side it’s indeed a horrible privacy violation, if it’s client side it’s trivial to bypass through some decompiled version of the app - so there is no good way to sell this.

We’re splitting hairs here, I agree with you generally speaking.

No ok that’s fine but if the check is client side, it happens offline and no data is sent to the servers unless a match is found, your privacy is still yours unless you’re sending CP no?

What is the problem if it’s client side though? Traffic is still not intercepted, communication is still private. Going from here to a full blown backdoor seems a bit far fetched…

That’s not what I said. What I said is: until now similar headlines and articles were bullshit, so I’m skeptical of this one too, exercise caution

I would be wary of this messaging.

There were a number of other times when it was being reported that the EU was going to do some moustache twirling kind of manoeuvre, and so far it was always deeply misreported - it was going to be the end of privacy but if you read the actual proposal it was actually sensible and not remotely close to what news said about it.

I haven’t read this proposal yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the same as always.