I do have a question that the article doesn't seem to attempt to answer, though. The article says (paraphrased in my new understanding) that any spectra which makes the cones in your eyes react the same way will result in seeing the same colour. Do we know of any examples of this?

(Colour-blindness seems like an obvious example; I'm curious though if there are any examples of two common scenarios where it can be demonstrated that there are different spectra in each, and yet most people will see them as the same colour.)

My understanding is that it is impossible to unlock the bootloader on a new recent (Android 7+ at least; possiblt earlier) Android phone until it has connected to the Internet. After that, the ability to unlock the bootloader is permanent.

[0] https://sequoiaview.win.tue.nl/

On the other hand, people say that AI models have tells that no actual person would do.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

There's an even bigger difference between that, and going online via the Internet back in the days when LAN parties were really popular, because the most common method of connecting to the internet was via modem.

This is actually a very interesting question, because I can see someone's answer being different between this question as stated, and the same question but where you would be paying the $10 instead of the button giving you $10:

> If someone offered you a magic button that carried a high probability of altering your tastes, your routines, and the way you think, but it cost $10 to press, would you press it?

Specifically (and somewhat paradoxically), I think more people would say yes to the second question than to the first, because people would start thinking about it as a transaction where the purpose of pressing the button has changed from "receiving money" to "changing myself", even though in both cases it's stated upfront.

Of course, in the context of subscriptions, the purpose is neither of these things (it's to receive the content that subscription is offering), so the first question is definitely more relevant in this situation than the second. It's still interesting to me, though.

You wouldn't want to share the resulting downloads (not only is the audio quality slightly degraded, but I imagine it's highly likely there would be audio watermarks), but when everybody can download straight from YouTube anyway with a minimum of hassle, why would you need to share anything other than a video URL?

Of course, a big part of why this is so simple is because of the massive amount of work that the downloader client devs put into working around YouTube's attempts to stop this. I imagine it can be a difficult job.

If YouTube ever win the battle against the downloader clients, I imagine the landscape will change again. Maybe Gnutella will make a comeback.

...a high search volume tells me that maybe users aren't able to find what they're actually looking for, thereby needing more searches.

1. Select region with mouse.

2. Ctrl-C: Copy the region.

3. Ctrl-V: Paste (with the selection still active, so that it pastes in the same place).

4. Ctrl-Shift-N: Makes the resulting "temporary layer" into a permanent new layer.

5. Use the new layer.

I wish I could skip step 4. It's usually not necessary, and if I need to place the temporary layer into the same layer that I was already using, I can just merge the two myself.

Of course, sometimes you do need the ability to directly paste into the same thing, such as if you're editing a layer mask rather than the actual layer itself...

This site itself is, funnily enough, a good example of this (and, to be fair, an outlier). When you sign up to an account here, you're not asked to agree to any terms. There's nothing that forces you to agree to any terms of service. The site does have them[0], but you can only access them by clicking the "Legal" link in the footer, and you're never required to do so. Yet people here are, by and large, behaving themselves, largely due to good moderation on the part of dang and others.

But if there were to be a lawsuit, for whatever reason, it's potentially possible that someone could successfully argue that they never had to agree to any terms. It's a technicality, of course - again, very few people read terms of service, and if they did, you'd think somebody would have noticed this omission by now - but an arguably legally actionable one.

Which leads me back to my point - the only reason that businesses make you agree to terms of service is because if they didn't, they could get lawsuits that might be found in favour of the plaintiff. Businesses don't want that, so they include the checkbox.

[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou

In my case, though, after carefully enabling only scripts from the site and the Cloudflare CDN, but not enabling XHR/websockets back to the source page, or any cookies, the only thing that happens for me is:

1. I see a button and an exhortation to click the button.

2. I click the button.

3. The site goes "Subject has clicked the button."

4. The site goes "...".

...and then nothing else happens, no matter where I click or move my mouse. In the background I can see attempted websocket connections, but I'm blocking those so they can't happen.

If the aim of the game is to open people's eyes to the dangers of online tracking, it feels like there should be a reward mechanism if such tracking is blocked!