ThrowAway237s

While udev (automount) mounts FAT32 file systems with utf8 encoding, and mount -o iocharset=utf8 can accomplish the same effect, the Linux default with no mount options is iso8859-1.

What is the benefit of defaulting to iso8859-1?

After all, it is Microsoft who created FAT12/16/32, and they picked UTF-8 on Windows.

I predict that Mentour Pilot will soon create a documentary on Japan Air Lines 123 from 1985, the worst single-aircraft disaster.

Date: Before mid-2026. Evidence: Most lethal air disaster he hasn't covered yet (besides 9/11, which had external causes, so it is out of scope for him).

That might sound pessimistic, but the sad reality is that the average mobile phone user won't notice until it is too late. The average mobile phone user just wants to get their daily dose of Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, or whatever is popular.

Google will ignore the campaign like they ignored the avalanche of complaints after they took away the option to turn off pull-to-refresh in Chrome, and will get away with it because its users have almost nowhere else to go (Apple was locked down since the beginning) or are too dependent on Google services for their daily lives.

While any smartphone vendor can use Android, Google services like Play Store and Gemini require phone vendors to be "Google Play certified", meaning they have to strictly comply with requirements set out in its certification process. No source links because I am tired of fighting the spam filter. Look it up for yourself if you want to.

The average mobile phone user gets fooled by the avalance of corporate propaganda into accepting beint treated like a toddler on their own smartphone, a property they paid for.

Users have already been conditioned into accepting lots of ownership violations such as locked bootloaders that are difficult or not possible to unlock, screenshot blocking, meaning apps can arbitrarily disable screen capture against the will of the device owner, as well as serialized batteries, text messages that can be falsified after sending, and data lock-in which prevents users from backing up or transferring their user data.

Date: 2026-2027. Evidence: All of the above.

I hereby release this post into the public domain under CC0 1.0.

A famous lyric from Jake Paul's song "It's everyday bro" is Nick Crompton's "England is my city".

What he possibly meant:

• He is so famous in England that everywhere where he would go, he would be recognized as if he were in his home city.

• He knows England so well as if it were his home city.

Edit in response to comment: I am not implying it is true, but it is what he might have believed.

There is a piece of lost media many people in Germany are looking for. Unfortunately, no one in the German lost media community found it so far. Probably whoever out there happens to have it doesn't know it is sought after.

This piece of lost media is a YouTube video that had a medium six-digit view count, from a channel that had almost half a million subscribers at the time it was released, and now has over a million subscribers, so there is a realistic chance someone out there has preserved it.

An idea in the back of my mind was to ask for it through the Internet megaphone: a search engine advertisement.

Someone searching for specific terms would get an advertisement that asks them if they have a copy of said video.

The advertisement could look similar to this:

Do you have a copy of "[video title]" by "[creator]"?

or

We are looking for the video "[video title]" by "[creator]". Please send us a copy if you have it.

Followed by contact details.

Given that this piece of lost media is a YouTube video, I highly doubt Google would allow it to be advertised on their platform because , nor do I trust Google with my real-life identity (which they require advertisers to disclose).

Therefore, I would have to resort to alternatives like Bing and DuckDuckGo. DuckDuckGo loads advertisements from Bing from what I understand.

Do you have experience asking for lost media through search engine ads? Do you recommend it? How do you imagine such an ad would look like?

The two most well-known NTFS drivers on Linux are ntfs-3g (FUSE driver, used for over a decade) and ntfs3 (kernel driver since 2021, replaced read-only ntfs kernel driver).

by on :

I usually always remember to -t ntfs-3g in my mount parameters. The Tuxera userspace driver is a lot more stable, imho.

Something about it bothered Linus and he merged ntfs3 into the kernel instead. I can't really remember what is was though.

This got me curious and I decided to research it a bit, but couldn't find a definitive answer. Does any of you know what bothered Torvalds about ntfs-3g?

Was it something licensing/bureaucracy-related or actually a technical reason?

Er hat viele Videos aus dieser Zeit entfernt. Hat jemand von euch damals Videos von KuchenTV gesichert, insbesondere aus den Miguel Pablo/HeracAy-Zeiten?

Shazam, and by extension anything that relies on it (like Aha-music), can only list one result.

This leads to the problem where Shazam doesn't find the original instrumental track, but other media that used it as background music.

Examples that can be tested include "The Midnight - Collateral" matching "BrookHoliday - Paper Guns" and "Wayne Jones - Mr. Sunny Face" matching the video "Bad Money" by Mark Angel comedy, because it used this as background music.

Does anyone know a sound search engine that matches multiple results?

I predict that social media services in most countries and all first-world countries will be government-owned by 2060, like it is in China today.

Date: 2060.

Evidence: See what China did with WeChat ().

In September 2016, German YouTuber KuchenTV (Tim Heldt) who at that time had over 450K subscribers (now over a million) published a satire video titled "10 unglaubliche Orte wo keiner/kaum einer war ft. TrollwutTV", which translates into "10 incredible places where no one/almost no one has been ft. TrollwutTV". Even though its view count was in the six digits, it is lost media now.

It is listed in . The thumbnail is an auto-generated stock photo used in the video. .

The video ID was QOuDVjYV1GE (). It is indicated as private, not removed for terms of service violations, so it was him who took it down, but likely involuntarily. The most plausible reason he took it down was that he got frightened of getting striked on old videos after his channel and other channels like "OPEN MIND" (discussion about drugs) were temporarily terminated in 2018 (reinstated shortly after), so as a precautionary measure, he took down lots of old videos with edgy humor that could even remotely be considered offensive. ()

For reference, strikes on old videos are what lead to the termination of Mumkey Jones later that year, and Mumkey was not reinstated.

"10 unglaubliche Orte ..." is the first video he published after his video titled "Miguel Pablos Beerdigung" (translated "Miguel Pablos funeral", later retitled to "Bye Bye Miguel Pablo!", a video against Miguel Pablo as the title suggests), one of his most viewed videos ever, and . 2016 was the year where KuchenTV rose to popularity, so I am convinced someone out there has a copy of "10 unglaubliche Orte ..." as well.

At 50M or 64M high resolutions (depending on device), it only lets you select automatic flash. What is the point of this restriction? It seems completely arbitrary and unreasonable.

In comparison, Xiaomi allows manual flash at high resolution, and even continuous light, which Samsung doesn't have at all in photo mode. But to Samsung's credit, they have added the ability to turn the light on and off during (not just before) a video recording, which Xiaomi does not have.

Smartphone video cameras have had a long history of struggling with high frame rates. They reached higher pixels per second by increases in video resolution rather than frame rate.

For example, the earliest 4K 2160p 30fps video recording smartphones were released in 2013, starting with the Galaxy Note 3. (Note: The Acer Liquid S2 had only 24fps and the same chipset as the Note 3, but I am taking the Note 3 as example due to my familiarity with the Samsung product lineage).

The same amount of unencoded data per second as 2160p 30fps would be accomplished with 1080p at 120fps, yet the Note 3 and several Samsung smartphones released thereafter could only record 1080p at 60fps. 120fps was only possible at 720p, so some kind of bottleneck prevented them from recording 1080p at 120fps.

The 1080p 60fps limitation stayed all the way until the S9 (2018) suddenly quadrupled the frame rate to 240fps. The 60fps were proably not a processing limitation, because from my testing, pre-2016 Samsung smartphones were perfectly capable of playing back 1080p 120fps and 720p 240fps video with no lag (original speed, not slowed down).

Yes, I know, playing (decoding) takes less processing power than recording (encoding), but I don't see how 1080p 120fps would be more difficult to process than 2160p at 30fps. They are the same number of pixels per second. 248,832,000 to be exact.

So my closest guess is that it has something to do with the image sensor.

From what I understand, video capture resolution is limited by two things: image sensor resolution and frame buffer size.

This means a 4K 120fps capable image sensor can not capture 8K at 30fps (same data rate) if it lacks the number of pixels (7680x4320 minimum), and the device can not encode 8K video if its GPU has too small of a frame buffer size to hold 7680×4320×8×3 bits of data (width × height × bits per pixel × number of color channels, R G B). The frame buffer needs to be at least large enough to hold a single uncompressed frame.

So what is it that bottlenecks the video recording frame rate of smartphone cameras?

Why can't every smartphone, or other video camera for that matter, that can record in 2160p at 30fps also record in 1080p at 120fps? In other words, why can't resolution be proportionally traded in for frame rate?

I hereby release this post into the public domain, CC0 1.0.

(All URLs removed. Markdown version with URLs: pastebin/w9r89N7g. Sorry, but I am not about to spend half an hour to figure out which link causes this post to be auto-detected as spam. All these links are valid evidence that support my prediction.)

Google Chrome, at least its mobile version, will probably give website operators the ability to prevent their pages from being downloaded and screen captured.

In the recent years, Google "Don't be evil", also known as "Web Environment Integrity company", has made major anti-control and anti-ownership decisions, most notably planning to remove the ability to install APKs by developers not personally identified and approved by Google and excusing it with the usual "protection" coroprate doublespeak fairy tale that, as always, fools most people, so this is not ouside the realm of possibility.

Given that "Don't be evil" controls most of the web browsing market share, they can do some real damage there as well. In 2023, "Don't be evil" hallucinated something up, naming it the "Web Environment Integrity API", which would have taken away lots of freedom from end users. But they graciously decided to step down with it. But the same can't be said about SafetyNet / Play Integrity API. And they take down YouTube videos criticizing it.

"Don't be evil" is also opposed to the idea of people owning permanent local copies of YouTube videos and also lets Android app developers arbitrarily disable screen capture.

Since 2018, "Don't be evil" Chrome on Android blocks screen capture in incognito mode, even though there are valid reasons for it like testing and documenting how a website appears to first-time visitors.

If When "Don't be evil" implements a download blocking anti-feature, it will probably be an HTTP header like allow-downloading: false and allow-screen-capture: false, or some euphemistic (good-sounding) name that hides the real meaning, like "flag secure", which they use for screenshot blocking on Android. And they will tell the usual familiar-sounding "it's to protect everyone's privacy" fairy tale.

Or their marketing department will frame it as "we give website owners more control over what happens with their content" or something like that, similarly to what they did with scrolling ("Take control of your scroll") after they enforced pull-to-refresh upon everyone by taking away the ability to turn it off.

If I can think of it, they must have thought of it long ago. "Don't be evil" executives won't rest easy until they have eroded away the last bit of user freedom. All that is holding them back from adding download blocking at this point is probably that it is easier to switch web browsers than operating systems. Installing an Android alternative like LineageOS requires an unlocked bootloader and significant technical knowledge, whereas installing Firefox or Brave browser is no big deal, at least for now.

The plain and simple reality is, if someone doesn't want their content preserved by others, they should not put it onto a visible spot on the Internet in the first place. It has been this way all the way since the beginning of the Internet.

So if you're a Chrome user, know this: Your ability to store local copies of any page you want is probably on borrowed time. Don't take it for granted.

Date: before 2030. Evidence: more than enough. See above.

I hereby release this post into the public domain, CC0 1.0.

Google Chrome, at least its mobile version, will probably give website operators the ability to prevent their pages from being downloaded and screen captured.

In the recent years, Google "Don't be evil", also known as "Web Environment Integrity company", has made major anti-control and anti-ownership decisions, most notably and excusing it with that, as always, fools most people, so this is not ouside the realm of possibility.

Given that "Don't be evil" controls most of the web browsing market share, they can do some real damage there as well. In 2023, "Don't be evil" hallucinated something up, naming it the "", which would have taken away lots of freedom from end users. But they graciously decided to step down with it. But the same can't be said about SafetyNet / Play Integrity API. And .

"Don't be evil" is also and also lets Android app developers arbitrarily .

Since 2018, "Don't be evil" Chrome on Android , even though there are valid reasons for it like testing and documenting how a website appears to first-time visitors.

If When "Don't be evil" implements a download blocking anti-feature, it will probably be an HTTP header like allow-downloading: false and allow-screen-capture: false, or some euphemistic (good-sounding) name that hides the real meaning, like "flag secure", which they use for . And they will tell the usual "it's to protect everyone's privacy" fairy tale.

Or their marketing department will frame it as "we give website owners more control over what happens with their content" or something like that, similarly to what they did with scrolling ("") after they by taking away the ability to turn it off.

If I can think of it, they must have thought of it long ago. "Don't be evil" executives won't rest easy until they have eroded away the last bit of user freedom. All that is holding them back from adding download blocking at this point is probably that it is easier to switch web browsers than operating systems. Installing an Android alternative like LineageOS requires an unlocked bootloader and significant technical knowledge, whereas installing Firefox or Brave browser is no big deal, at least for now.

The plain and simple reality is, if someone doesn't want their content preserved by others, they should not put it onto a visible spot on the Internet in the first place. It has been this way all the way since the beginning of the Internet.

So if you're a Chrome user, know this: Your ability to store local copies of any page you want is probably on borrowed time. Don't take it for granted.

Date: before 2030. Evidence: more than enough. See above.

I hereby release this post into the public domain, .

To cut off students from the outside world / their parents, it has to be ensured that they do not smuggle communication devices can be smuggled in, while teachers freely show each other social media clips on their phones (happened during my school time).

Smartphones are neutral pocket-sized computers. They can be used for productive puporses or otherwise. If smartphones are so distracting, teachers shouldn't have them either. Teachers use the same social media they say distracts students.

Another reason is to prevent students from contacting their parents when teachers engage in bullying.

Date: 2030-2035.

Evidence: None, but it is plausible. "Public" schools (meaning government-backed) will have no trouble funding it. I wouldn't be surprised.

The "Disk Usage Analyzer" tool, formerly known as Baobab, used to support multiple windows. This allowed the user to look at the results of a scan while a different scan is running in background, and allowed having multiple scan results open without having to close any existing results.

But at some point, its developers made it so that trying to start a second instance will instead bring the existing window into the foreground.

There is no need for a single-session limitation for Baobab. On some other software like Firefox, multiple instances would interfere with each other in the profile folder, and Firefox has a tabbed and multi-windowed user interface anyway.

But on Baobab, there are no such restrictions.

So what is the purpose of a single-session limitation?

We have changed the rules. Self-promotion was completely outruled by the prior moderation team, but we decided to allow it in the comments if it adds value to a discussion and in this megathread.

Here, you can promote your own channel and also someone else's channel if you like.