In the context of the Epstein files, I think Schmidt's actual quote looks pretty good ("If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place").

The problem is that even if Schmidt didn't do anything wrong (I don't know but all the link says is he may have been invited to a dinner but probably didn't attend), he nevertheless had something to fear.

Your comment reminded of the youtuber who changed the shop signs in his video into scary non-English script: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPZxMVpnCBM

Edit: Changed to link I like a bit more

Yes! This is partly why I brought it up. I remember that video from Kurt Caz.

There are shops elsewhere in Europe with Arabic signs. You can go there and buy things. They're not outside of the ordinary statistical distribution of shops.

Certain people would rather fearmonger though.

Anything else worth considering other than youtube (or self-hosting if scale isn't an issue)?

We are quite happy with bunny(.net) stream. Very affordable and easy to use

Apparently you can turn it on with about:config / dom.webgpu.enabled

But personally, I'm not going to start turning on unsafe things in my browser so I can see the demo. I tried firefox and chromium and neither worked so pfft, whatever.

I'm fairly agnostic to the headline question of whether social media should be banned for under 16s. The part that seems interesting to me is whether this will entail linking online activity to real world identity for the rest of us. It doesn't have to, but in practice I guess that's probably what'll happen. Unfortunately all the debate is "but freedom of speech" vs "but think of the kids" vs, and nobody will be lobbying for a better (or less worse) implementation.

> Is this not the job of the operating system or its supporting parts, to deal with audio from various sources

I think that's the point? In practice the OS (or its supporting parts) resample audio all the time. It's "under the hood" but the only way to actually avoid it would be to limit all audio files and playback systems to a single rate.

I don't understand then, why they need to deal with that when making a game, unless they are not satisfied with the way that the OS resamples under the hood.

My reading is not that they're saying it's something they necessarily have deal with themselves, but that it's something they can't practically avoid.

But they CAN practically avoid it. lol. Just let the system do it for them.

If my audio files are 44.1kHz, and the user plays 48kHz audio at the same time, how do I practically avoid my audio being resampled?

I don't feel it necessary to take matters into my own hands. If you read my original message again:

    > Either my game has to resample from 44.1kHz to 48kHz
    > before sending it to the system, or the system
    > sound mixer needs to resample it to 48kHz, or the
    > system sound mixer needs to resample the other software
    > from 48kHz to 44.1kHz

I expressed no preference with regard to those 3. I was outlining the theoretically possible options, to illustrate that there is no way to avoid resampling.

I got a different impression, because you also wrote:

> If only it was that simple T_T

Which to me sounded like _for you_ it's not simple because reasons, which led me to believe, that you _do_ want to take it into your own hands, making it not simple, ergo not being able to let the OS do it, for reasons. Now I understand what you mean, thanks!

I suppose, if you interpret "avoid" as "not care about".

I interpret them to mean "avoid doing it oneself" not "avoid it happening entirely".

If you read the comments with the other interpretation I think the conversation will make more sense.

> This isn't really a drawback

But, that's only true because people freely resample between them all the time and nobody knows or cares about it.

> Unless I'm missing something?

I suppose the option you're missing is you could try to get pristine captures of your samples at every possible sample rate you need / want to support on the host system.

Do you have a link about the case you're quoting? I can't find any reference to it.

So I guess my next question is, why are all your recent comments saying things that are obviously and unambiguously not true? These things are all trivial to check, and it's not like nobody is calling you out on it. I don't get what's in it for you.

There's a version of this where you make your case (which IMO is, at its core, based on reasonable concerns) without relying on obviously untrue statements. Why not try that?

Clarify which statement is "not true".

As a long-time Linux user I've also felt an incongruity between my own experiences with Wayland and the recent rush of "year of the Linux desktop" posts. To be fair, I think the motivation is at least as much about modern Windows' unsuitability for prime time rather as Linux's suitability. I haven't used Windows for a long time so I can't say how fair that is, but I definitely see people questioning 2026 Windows' readiness for prime time.

For me, Wayland seems to work OK right now, but only since the very latest Ubuntu release. I'm hoping at this point we can stop switching to exciting new audio / graphics / init systems for a while, but I might be naive.

Edit: I guess replacing coreutils is Ubuntu's latest effort to keep things spicy, but I haven't seen any issues with that yet.

Edit2: I just had the dispiriting thought that it's about twenty years since I first used Ubuntu. At that point it all seemed tantalizingly close to being "ready for primetime". You often had to edit config files to get stuff working, and there were frustrating deficits in the application space, but the "desktop" felt fine, with X11, Alsa, SysV etc. Two decades on we're on the cusp of having a reliable graphics stack.

>I just had the dispiriting thought that it's about twenty years since I first used Ubuntu. At that point it all seemed tantalizingly close to being "ready for primetime".

I feel the same and find it a bit strange. I am happy with hyprland on wayland since a few months back but somehow it reminds me of running enlightenment or afterstep in the 90s. My younger self would have expected at least a decade of "this is how the UI works in Linux and it's great" by now.

Docker and node both got started after wayland and they are mature enterprise staples. What makes wayland such a tricky problem?

I too share your sense of incongruity .

But then I try and focus on what each author thinks is important to them and it’s often wildly different than what’s important to me.

But a lot of internet discussion turns into very ego-centric debate including on here, where a lot of folks who are very gung-ho on the adoption of something (let’s say Linux, but could be anything) don’t adequately try and understand that people have different needs and push the idea of adoption very hard in the hopes that once you’re over the hump you might not care about what you lost.