The article which does nothing to suggest meta glasses were actually an integral part to this? Again, cell phone in shirt pocket. Accomplishes the same thing. Or hell, a pen cam which is a thing that’s been around for decades and is a fraction of the cost.

The problem is that an asshole decided to ignore the “no recording” request. There are dozens if not hundreds of discreet ways the asshole could have done this, in the same way there are dozens of tools you can use to break a window.

I mean, they absolutely do. You can usually get away with the generics but I’ve run across my fair share of monitors that support minimum resolutions until the appropriate driver is installed.

Clarification, healthcare usually lasts till the end of the month, because that’s what already been paid for.

Ha, honestly as someone living in the US that sounds like a lot more than I’ve ever got.

Fuck man, you’re right. Let’s ban cameras in general, they can be used for creepy things. Ban phones too, those can be used for creepy things.

The tech is useful, and has potential to become much more useful in the future. Being a Luddite about the tech doesn’t solve the problem, it just ignores the assholes.

I bought a Luna controller by accident a while ago, figured I’d give it a shot since it was in hand. Returned it in no time, the experience was just bad.

“Yeah, so we punished our end users because of something a manufacturer did.”

Like, I get the sentiment. But “no pushing drivers” ain’t the solution.

I also have to wonder if M$ can do that? If the drivers are being loaded by the monitor and not something like windows update, M$ has virtually no control over it.

To connect to those, you’re going through a Datacenter, or your not online.

<.< I mean, you’re as disallowed to stick you’re face in those places just as much as you’re disallowed to stick a camera. This feels like a “think of the children” argument.

If I stick my phone in my shirt pocket, I can record and live stream it, how is the camera being mounted to my head any different?

Like, I get it. People are assholes, and I 100% agree that is the case. But assholes have been recording themselves doing asshole things for decades, this isn’t new behavior, and it feels like its being used to vilify tech for existing.

Honestly, I am not effected by the decisions in any way, the issue I take is with the extremely vague wording, the fact that these two changes were made rather rapidly and seemingly just because they don’t like that type of project.

What is the next project that harms their reputation? A torrenting application? An emulation application? Anything written in php?

We wouldn’t and don’t take kindly to corpos using this kind of stuff, why would it be different here?

This is arguably a worse situation then. They aren’t naming crypto as banned, they are naming a vague hand wave as banned. Literally anything can be interpreted as harming Codebergs reputation. Hell, is reputation defined, or is that something that can be decided on the fly? “Our reputation as an anti emulation company is being harmed so we have banned all emulator projects.”

This is the kind of vague shit we get mad at corpos for, don’t give them a thumbs up for the exact same behavior.

I’ve always wondered, doesn’t Backblaze cut exfiltration costs to zero if you proxy it through cloudflare? Why isn’t that an option so you’re only paying for storage costs and not bandwidth?