Not related to the tech bits of this, but I finally got around to watching Aftersun a couple of days ago. It's a great, sad film about somebody watching home video from their childhood and reevaluating what was going on.

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".