Yeah, it’s got doom. The frame rate is fairly useless, much like the rest of the device it seems.

Latency is terrible (as in 1-2 seconds to respond to a single key press even in a text editor, let alone doom) and the screen is limited to, iirc, 1 million refreshes total before dying. At roughly fives hours of use per day with a refresh once/second, you’re looking at 55 days before the screen burns out.

South Park has traditionally supported the GOP by either normalizing things or both-sides’ing.

Don’t expect them to suddenly stop now.

Thje problem is more that they tend to get WAY MORE hate for way less stuff.

Like, blizzard literally had a woman commit suicide because she thought she was going to be used as a company sex slave. Yet Nintendo gets more shit than blizzard does, because Nintendo doesn’t want you pirating their games.

Like, bruh, priorities. I know it’s not a zero sum game, but god damn.

For better or worse, yes. (Probably worse, but this is the world we have to deal with…)

Yeah, they’ve done that at the malls near me as well. Surprise surprise, 3 of them have closed down and the fourth is a ghost town.

Basically every store in the place is some kind of crystals-and-juju or retirement-scam place, along with somehow a ton of phone case booths?

When I was a kid (might be dating myself here) there was music shops, arcades, bookstores, food, all kinds of shit.

A good point, but I’ll note that most socialization for kids these days doesn’t necessarily happen at a singular friend’s house- it’s typically in a private chat/channel/group/etc online.

I am, admittedly, basing some of this off other posts the guy has made in this… err, thread? Post? Not sure what the lemmy vocab is here, but I can quote it:

And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.

I dunno about you man, but kids probably don’t need protected from friendships, even if they might have the occasional drama… and ‘the outside world’ comment just concerns me.

For getting to experience life instead of being locked in a house, only able to interact with family?

Parenting is about making the best choices you can for your children, not simply making choices for your children. And I never said to give them everything they want. To take the example to the extreme, you could certainly give your kids ‘nothing’ in regards to food, but that’s not parenting, that’s child abuse via starvation. Obviously giving your kid access to a phone is not ANYWHERE near equivalent to access to food, but it illustrates the point- parenting is not simply deciding things for your kids, including what they get. You need to do your best to support them into becoming the best them, and that includes giving them social opportunities. In a perfect world, yes, absolutely, phones would be something you give to a kid maybe in highschool, or even when they leave the house, but only when you decide they deserve the privilege, but this isn’t that world. Phones aren’t just privileged toys- they’re the expected (and in some cases only) methods of communication and connection for people. We can sit here and argue whether or not that’s a good thing or not- I personally think it isn’t, and as someone that’s forced to be on-call 24/7/365 I think I have a pretty good grasp on the matter- but it’s where we’re currently at, and unfortunately we have to work in that structure even if and as we’re potentially trying to change it. Give your kids the opportunities, even while explaining the problems and why they need changed, you know?

The fact is, the dude says in another comment that s/he is intentionally trying to socially isolate their kids to ‘protect them’ which is textbook helicopter/overcontrolling parent and deeply fucks kids up for life. S/He literally outright says they want their kids to cleanly break from ‘friendship drama’ and the literal outside world. That’s… words cannot describe how concerning that sounds.

What an odd, incorrect assumption. Kids need to be able to socialize. This isn’t the 1980s anymore, you can’t just go to a mall, there are very few physical third spaces anymore, literally none in some locations.

For a lot of kids, those third spaces are via phone/online. I can absolutely understand wanting to limit exposure to bad influences of phones, that IS good parenting, but you need to offer alternatives, or managed use, or something, or you’re socially isolating your kid. Worst case scenario, you’re getting them bullied- kids can be cruel (though from what I’ve seen, not as much as they used to be, thankfully).

The person literally said in another comment:

Yes, it’s part of set them up to succeed not fail. And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.

Now, I’m assuming this is partially a situation of english not being the first language, from some of the grammar, but wanting to have their kids be ‘cleanly’ broken away from friendships, school stuff, and the very outside world sounds… look, I’m going to be frank here, their literal goal seems to be socially stunting their kid via helicoptering.

Kids need to learn who they are. You’re not trying to raise someone to be a child, you’re trying to raise someone to be a healthy, functioning adult, and part of that means going through friendships, even friendship drama, exploring the outside world, etc etc.

What a weird rule. You are intentionally destroying your kid’s social, developmental, and interpersonal opportunities because you’re unwilling to actually put in the time to parent.

The least you could do is give them a dumb phone, so they are ostracized less. Or better yet, actually teach and parent them how to use a phone, and then give them a phone with locked down permissions to block tiktok/etc that are actually problematic, while still allowing them access to things that allow them to relate to friends and their community. Trust but verify.

I know what he’s talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript’s standard.

But google implemented it into chrome’s javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren’t available, but, because of a ‘mistake’ they didn’t work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google’s throat that it needed fixed.

The article is a security company trying to hype their company ruining their reputation in an incredibly ill-thought out attack that companies will ABSOLUTELY remember.

Even worse, it just makes this security company look incompetent. Like a home security company that announces a huge vulnerability in Schlage locks- there’s a key that can unlock the lock included with every lock sold!!11!!!11!one!

So instead of blatant racism based on a lie, you’re just going to dogwhistle racism based on a lie.

Because it needs to be said and hasn’t yet- you’re a good person. The United States needs more people like you.

Why are you pushing this guy to replace the non-working spy unit with a WORKING spy unit?

uh… ok? So now it’ll be controlled by someone who DOES want to be the next Musk or Zuckerberg?

Because the entire design of it is to mathematically prevent you from having the option to hack or block the ads. THe way to get around it is to… not use chrome.