I can't vouch for this extension in particular (because I haven't tested it), but I've used and written similar extensions myself and can confirm that the concept is legit.
Spoofing the user agent and decoding capabilities and [...] is a useful way to unblock things that are crippled on various browsers, indeed.
The problem here is requiring hardware-attested DRM: Widevine L1 on Edge on Windows, and Apple FairPlay on Safari on MacOS. The only way to get hardware attested DRM is via browser specific (i.e.: native code) support that interfaces with the OS & GPU drivers. You can't get there through an extension.
Right, but the point is that Netflix still refuses to play 4K on some browsers with hardware DRM support. Even getting it to work in Edge was a challenge last time I tried - iirc I got it working via https://github.com/lkmvip/netflix-4K-DDplus
it's very difficult to have a conversation about this, because it would appear that sincere answers to your question will get downvoted. one POV is that, if you accept the bear case from Internet commenters that these guys are incompetent or stupid - blah blah blah, Cybetruck - the existence of their autonomous taxi product is extremely bullish. they managed to pull off something similar to Waymo despite being so much worse at it, yes? I'm not sure they will even need a diverse product line of premium cars, if they can sell an autonomous 3 for the price of a small house. on the flip side, the bear case there is, if they could figure it out, so will a lot of other car companies. and yet, Cruise ceased operations, and Tesla will seemingly pay a manageable amount of blood money for Autopilot and move on.
nobody really can predict the future, so unsurprisingly, "reading various articles about this doesn't make it more clear." but people on the Internet keep getting worked up about it. to me, people do not comprehend the meaning of "high risk, high reward."
Their autonomous taxi program is a joke right now, especially compared to Waymo. Way fewer cities/rides, and they haven't even deployed their cybertaxi thing.
Tesla doesn't even trust their own full self driving system. They still have safety monitors for their self-driving taxi service.
The Las Vegas Loop continues to have actual drivers and that's an enclosed space entirely controlled by Tesla. If you can't even trust it in a single lane space you completely control, how can you trust it in the real world?
If you think it is, take your hands of the wheel and close your eyes. Fall asleep at the wheel. Not willing to do so? I guess your car isn't really driving you everywhere.
Your view on how stocks work is interesting as well — you realize most of the investors are regular, uninformed non-techies who invest based on vibes, right? Vibes like "my car is driving me everywhere, this is the future!" — the exact same thoughtless, surface-level analysis you're going off of.
Therefore, you're trying to beat the market by using the exact same reasoning 99% of its investors have used. Good luck.
When Tesla started producing cars, everyone wanted what they proposed. Now, no one wants the cybertruck. No one is really asking for humanoid robots. Their self driving is vastly inferior to waymo when it comes to taxies, I can't see them winning that market. Their batteries and solar panels, like their cars, seem to be more or less abandoned.
So, it's pretty easy to see why people are confused and upset. Tesla is discontinuing all the things people like about Tesla, and selling vapourware that no one really wants anyways, instead. It's also not "a difficult conversation."
What seems more likely is that Musk, in his extreme shift to the right, has abandoned the original goal of Tesla: producing sustainable electric vehicles. He's become more and more delusional, with failing like the Boring machine and the Cybertruck starting to pile up. He's alienated his existing customer base by both getting into politics and dropping any pretext of trying to help the environment.
From my point of view, Tesla is a failed company with a leader who has gone off the rails, and a board that refuses to reign him in. Revenues are falling off a cliff outside of US governmental money, and it's betting the whole ship on only two ideas: self driving, which is so far no where close to being where it needs to be, despite the progress, and on yet another fairy tale that is humanoid robots.
The board cannot rein him in because doing so risks having the stock valued as a car company stock and not as a tech company or meme stock. I think they can only fix this after the stock has crashed.
imo their competition for autonomous vehicles doesn’t come from car companies, but from tech companies.
Amazon has a lucrative incentive to automate its supply chain up to and including last mile delivery. Waymo has proven out the tech and could easily partner with Uber or Lyft for the rider experience and reach.
If you’re FedEx, for example, would you rather buy from Amazon or from Tesla? Who is more likely to be a sane and trustworthy partner?
I don't think that Uber or Lyft are going to invest in self-driving taxis. The capital model is completely different: Uber and Lyft are by design capital light, they own nothing more than the software (1), and someone needs to buy all of these self-driving machines and then someone needs to maintain them, whereas their current model doesn't do that- they can't offer that to any tech partner.
The reason that you don't see more Waymo areas has nothing to do with rider pool or experience, it is because their tech requires pre-mapping everything with LiDAR several times- the advantage is that if you know what is static (because it was in all of that LiDAR mapping) then a simple difference algo can tell you everything that is dynamic in the environment. (Also, they are just starting to hit cities with significant precipitation- SFO, LA, ATX, PHX are all pretty dry cities, they are going into ATL, MIA, DC, DEN, etc.)
1: With a lot of suspicion that much of their profit comes from drivers not understanding depreciation of their vehicles, something that the accountants who work for Uber and Lyft will understand very very well.
I'm talking about after, of course. They retained a massive investment in Aurora as part of that deal. They invested in Waabi not long after, then Nuro, Avride and started partnerships with Waymo, Motional, and others.
> they managed to pull off something similar to Waymo despite being so much worse at it, yes?
similar?! what exactly is your definition of similar? tesla and waymo are so far apart that it is difficult to accept any argument that tries to make this comparison. they cannot co-exist in the same sentence unless to explain one’s success against the other’s failures
Nvidia follows the same strategy because having a large end-to-end model is how you get your customers to buy GPUs with their AI slush fund (and I don't think they limit themselves to vision).
His rationale at this point seems to be mostly stubbornness, coupled with a healthy dose of anxiety when he considers how much money he'll have to spend to deliver FSD to the people who bought it 10 years ago.
i can understand the enthusiasm around LLM authored code bases.
but i cannot understand why someone would write comments on hacker news with an LLM. how could you say something was interesting, if you didn't even do it?
We need different language for describing things AI did for us vs things we figured out ourselves. When a human presents work under their own name, there is an unspoken but widely relied-upon assumption that the presenter has exercised judgment over the space of possible choices and can explain why these ones were taken.
In other words, we naturally assume they engaged with the problem space deeply enough to justify the decisions made.
I think AI-produced code and investigation needs a disclaimer, and I say that as someone who uses vibe coding a lot to produce tooling used in our development process.
If you didn’t do it or write it yourself, you don’t understand it as well as if you had. If you didn’t look at the output in great detail and understand every choice made, you really shouldn’t be putting your name on it — or staking your reputation on it — without a pretty clear disclaimer.
And if you present an investigation done by AI as something done by yourself, you’re not really providing human insights. (Almost) anyone can drive an AI, and there’s not a lot of value there for your audience if you don’t disclose that’s what you did.
If you attach your name to work, you are asserting that you can meaningfully answer “why this and not something else?” across the decisions that matter. Tools that produce answers faster than humans think require new language, because our old words still imply thought occurred.
Funny, actually not the case. Co-authored partly yes, mainly to compensate for my lack of knowledge of the intricacies of English (not my native language). Anyway: take from it what you want, if it helps you: nice! Else: have fun doing something else.
Interesting that you feel this is necessary. Why would a disclaimer be needed? If I read the technical docs for a library and use that in my code, should I explicitly mention that I got this from the docs? I know a lot, but am happy to admit I do not know everything, so I am happy to use tools that help me. And I got what I wanted in the end: being able to continue with my real work: helping a client.
This felt like an article of "This is how I worked this out". If you found something out through the docs, I'd be interested to know that. If you found it out through asking an LLM, that would be helpful to know as well. Maybe other people would write that kind of article differently, but when I write them, I try to put in as much detail as I can about how I worked something out, in case it's useful to other people
> When a human presents work under their own name, there is an unspoken but widely relied-upon assumption that the presenter has exercised judgment over the space of possible choices and can explain why these ones were taken.
> …
> If you attach your name to work, you are asserting that you can meaningfully answer “why this and not something else?” across the decisions that matter. Tools that produce answers faster than humans think require new language, because our old words still imply thought occurred.
It seems bad for OpenAI to make this about latex documents, which will be now associated, visually, with AI slop. The opposite of what anyone wants really. Nobody wants you to know they used a chatbot!
don't think so. I think latex was one of academics' earlier use cases of chatgpt, back in 2023. That's when I started noticing tables in every submitted paper looking way more sophisticated than they ever did. (The other early use case of course being grammar/spelling. Overnight everyone got fluent and typos disappeared.)
It's funny, I was reading a bunch of recent papers not long ago (I haven't been in academia in over a decade) and I was really impressed with the quality of the writing in most of them. I guess in some cases LLMs are the reason for that!
I recently got wrongly accused of using LLMs to help write an article by a reviewer. He complained that our (my and my co-worker's) use of "to foster" read "like it was created by ChatGPT". (If our paper was fluent/eloquent, that's perhaps because having an M.A. in Eng. lit. helped for that.)
I don't think any particular word alone can be used as an indicator for LLM use, although certain formatting cues are good signals (dashes, smileys, response structure).
We were offended, but kept quiet to get the article accepted, and we changed some instances of some words to appease them (which thankfully worked). But the wrong accusation left a bit of a bad aftertaste...
If you’ve got an existing paragraph written that you just know could be rephrased more eloquently, and can describe the type of rephrasing/restructuring you want… LLMs absolutely slap at that.
LaTeX is already standard in fields that have math notation, perhaps others as well. I guess the promise is that "formatting is automatic" (asterisk), so its popularity probably extends beyond math-heavy disciplines.
that may be. but that's like saying, "XYZ is a killer app for vinyl" haha.
football as a televised spectator sport? trending down. it's not dead, but where growth is measured, it is not good. the cultural thing this guy is talking about in the article, it's going away. fewer and fewer people every year value the aesthetic experience he is describing.
TV ownership? trending down. they've never been cheaper for a reason. trend for TV production since peak TV? down.
football as a gambling product? up. okay, do you see what i mean by bad growth? football mediated as betting stats on apps? up. draftkings, polymarket, ESPN fantasy app ARPPU? up. ESPN streaming app ARPU? down. comcast? hated, down, everyone is cheering for it to go down. do you see?
there is no way to talk about specific instances of football (and stadium sports') cultural weaknesses without sounding really cringe. maybe just, "who cares?"
I get that you don't like football and you don't like television, which is fine.
As someone who's been analyzing video content industry trends for a few decades now, I just want to let you know you've reached some incomplete or misleading conclusions based a variety of category errors and assumptions. Traditional living room televisions are just one way of consuming video content. And "over-the-air broadcast" is just one way of distributing video content. Assuming broadcast television viewership shrinking also means less video is being created and consumed is like assuming music consumption is down because CD sales are down or the printed word is dying because fax machine sales are down.
The reality is quite the opposite. Video content creation, distribution and consumption are all growing at very high rates and have been for a long time. The industry puts a lot of effort into reproducible, audited measurement and has developed deep understanding of how viewership has shifted and multiplied across video consumption platforms, consumption modes, and distribution channels - ranging from streaming long-form to social snacking. While it's true that broadcast television is shrinking and traditional living room TV sales are down, far more video content is being created, distributed and consumed today than ever before, and not by a little - the growth trends are explosive regardless of how we count: viewers, views, hours, titles, revenue or reach. All the metrics measured across the entire video content lifecycle reflect the same incredible growth.
I suggest you focus on the myriad ways video content can be bad, is getting worse or has negative effects on kids, culture or human progress. But arguing video isn't growing is neither accurate nor necessary to support your point.
Do you have sales or survey data to support this claim? I’m willing to believe individual households might be less likely to purchase TVs, but my understanding is that manufacturers are producing as many or even more screens than ever, though that might be for commercial or business use. Incidentally, it’s efficiency from this scale that allows manufacturers to sell televisions at such low prices, not a lack of demand.
haha well you wouldn't have thought that at some point in the past, tv set ownership was like 100%, so of course it has gone down, but it's still trending down. this also seems kind of obvious to me.
Hmmm. NFL revenue continues to grow, with something like half of it from media licensing. So, I think you’re wrong. My son watches NFL on his laptop, but there’s little to distinguish how he watches it from the experience he would have on a Samsung tv - he’s not like in some chat group trying to get Ochocinco to write his name on a jersey - he’s passively consuming an edited video feed of a football game with commentary.
i didn't say the NFL made less money, because i'm not stupid. i'm trying to describe a secular trend so i'm comparing the revenue growth in different media companies. looking at this table, a simple way to interpret this is, kind of obviously, netflix isn't really about presenting on TVs per se, they make a media platform, which performed way better than the NFL did, almost 10:1, which is really reinforcing my point no? for every 1 dollar someone gives NFL, consumers give Netflix 9. see? to me that is a trend going down, even if to you, it is a trend going up. depends what your benchmark is!
another POV: other people do a better job at making NFL content than the NFL does, which is what you are saying your son is consuming. and listen, honestly, ask him if he or his friends bet on football...
> football as a televised spectator sport? trending down.
AFAIC, NFL football is almost always the top 99 out of 100 most viewed television programs in the US every year. The Oscars usually manage to claw onto the list and in election years a couple presidential debates make it, displacing a few regular season games. Since your claim conflicts with my current understanding, I just had AI do a quick search of recent credible sources. Here's the summary:
> "The claim that football (American football/NFL) as a televised spectator sport is trending down is not true based on recent data.
>Regular season NFL viewership saw a minor dip of about 2.2% in 2024 (averaging 17.5 million per game), but rebounded strongly in 2025 with significant gains—averaging around 18.7 million viewers per game (up 10% from the prior season in some reports, marking the highest in 36 years or second-highest on record when including updated measurement methods like Nielsen's Big Data + out-of-home viewing). Networks like CBS, Fox, NBC, and Amazon all reported year-over-year increases, with streaming platforms showing particularly strong growth.
> Super Bowl audiences continue setting records: Super Bowl LIX (2025) averaged 127.7 million viewers (up 3% from the previous year), marking consecutive record highs. Playoff games, including wild-card and divisional rounds, also showed double-digit increases in multiple cases. While some earlier seasons had slight declines (often tied to factors like election years or measurement changes), the overall trend since 2024-2025 has been upward, reinforcing the NFL's position as the dominant U.S. televised sport."
Your impression may arise from shifting measurement platform data due to increasing out-of-home, mobile, streaming, DVR, etc viewership. Just comparing traditional old-school Nielsen in-home diary data alone hasn't been accurate for over a decade. Even if we discount recent cross-platform measurement data, the overwhelming dominance of NFL football is also well supported by the audited financial reports of what broadcasters and streamers pay the NFL and further by what advertisers pay for slots. The sheer money being paid dwarfs all other sports and types of television programming (news, drama, comedy, etc). The recent dramatic growth of legalized sports gambling in the US will likely push NFL viewership across all platforms and formats even higher.
> all TV broadcast is growing like 1/10th the rate as Netflix did in the past decade.
Okay, but that undermines your earlier point. The NFL isn't tied to or limited by 'broadcast television'. NFL football is simply 'video content', but not just any video content, it's the hottest video content of all time - no matter how its distributed. Streaming is now the fastest growing distribution channel for video content, so it's also the fastest growing channel for live football video content. Netflix is paying big bucks to stream some live NFL games - with plans to increase next year. And Amazon Prime is already a major 'network' for NFL with Thursday Night Football. Industry analysts report NFL football is by far the single most expensive content/hr for Netflix and Prime and is a major loss leader for both. They're paying the NFL far more than the broadcast rights are worth as a way to 'buy' more of the subscriber growth you find so impressive. Netflix (and Amazon Prime) aren't 'beating' NFL football, they've surrendered and are joining them (at a loss).
Disney Plus tried to bid on NFL streaming rights but NFL is so expensive it's a hugely risky way for streamers to buy viewers, so Disney dropped out and recently did a deal for exclusive US live streaming rights for a much smaller sport than NFL - F1 racing. Bottom line: live sports is the biggest, most consistent driver of video content viewership - and always has been. NFL is by far the biggest video content sport - and always has been. It's been true for over 50 years, from traditional over-the-air broadcast, cable television (in the 80s NFL rights made ESPN the most valuable cable channel), satellite (in the 90s out-of-market NFL games were the largest driver of DirectTV & Dish growth) and now it's a key growth vector for streamers.
Streaming isn't a threat to the NFL, it's the NFL's biggest growth channel. In fact, the real limit on the NFL's future growth isn't distribution at all. It's already so dominant in the U.S, it has no competition close enough to be relevant. The NFL's only remaining limit is, quite literally, the size of the U.S. population. That's why the NFL's been investing huge sums trying to establish NFL football elsewhere in the world. It's their single biggest growth priority - because they're already the absolute, undisputed king of broadcast, cable, satellite and streaming in the U.S.
i didn't even say that nfl viewership is down. i think most new viewers are disproportionately gamblers, and children that don't get to choose what to watch haha.
Does the IFR matter? The public thinks lives are infinitely valuable. Lives that the public pays attention to. 0.1% or 1%, it doesn’t really matter, right, it gets multiplied by infinity in an ROI calculation. Or whatever so called “objective” criteria people try to concoct for policymaking. I like Ioannidis’s work, and his results about serotypes (or whatever) were good, but it was being co-opted to make a mostly political policy (some Republicans: compulsory public interaction during a pandemic and uncharitably, compulsory transmission of a disease) look “objective.”
I don’t think the general idea of co-opting is hard to understand, it’s quite easy to understand. But there is a certain personality type, common among people who earn a living by telling Claude what to do, out there with a defect to have to “prove” people on the Internet “wrong,” and these people are constantly, blithely mobilized to further someone’s political cause who truly doesn’t give a fuck about them. Ioannidis is such a personality type, and as you can see, a victim.
> The public thinks lives are infinitely valuable.
In rhetoric, yes. (At least, except when people are given the opportunity to appear virtuous by claiming that they would sacrifice themselves for others.)
In actions and revealed preferences, not so much.
It would be rather difficult to be a functional human being if one took that principle completely seriously, to its logical conclusion.
I can't recall ever hearing any calls for compulsory public interaction, only calls to stop forbidding various forms of public interaction.
The SHOW UP act was congressional republicans forcing the end of telework for federal workers, not for any rational basis. Teachers in Texas and Florida, where Republicans run things, staff were faced with show up in person (no remote learning) or quit.
reply