That said, we don't use the TV much. I sit with family and dogs to watch a movie twice per week, and it is turned off the rest of the time.

And therein lies the difference.

"Video time" here involves two or more people throwing a bunch of 5 to 20 minute videos into a queue from multiple remote devices, and letting them play through.  It's not everyone's use case, for sure.  But it's our use case, and the traditional "cast" interface matches it well.

Sounds like officially supported android subsystem is coming to ChromeOS flex.

That is the one piece its missing. Its a good web terminal, if your hardware supports it you can run linux VMs with almost no effort..  easy install, has drivers that are a pain in the neck with linux ( like apple wifi.. )

i know i know.. google is evil.. but stuff like this is still opensource ( for now at least ) and 'less evil' than the commercial alternatives for the 'average joe' to use.

I still dont get why FlexOS doesn't have Android subsystem baked in, would make it really popular i think.  FydeOS, which is based on chromeOS code did have it ( may never come back however, the project they relied on, shut down )  and x86 pixel books have it ( and other 3rd party x86 chromebooks had it and im sure there are a few still )..  And there are x86 android solutions for linux ( tho it requires wayland.. ick )  So it's not a technical limitation. 

People are stupid.

There is a plugin for Chrome, that is pretty much now dead due to manifest changes since it needed high level access to the page. ( was far more than a simple ad-block )  Aside from the normal complaints saw one today " i cant believe its even affected in chromium"   Um.. lol.   Ill give them a little slack on something like brave, if you dont have the sense to ask, you dont know, but chromium? really?

And another did not understand that for the most part, if you change browsers any particular page basically looks the same..  they seemed surprised..   

Many cant figure out why this app isn't available for the 'android' app that goes along with the web page. "its going to the same site"  um.... no, its a freaking web browser plugin...

They all need to get their phone out and go back to tiktok, they are just wasting our time with posts.. and no i don't expect them to be experts or something, but geesh use some logic.

Still say there needs to be an "existence test". If you fail base level intelligence and logic questions,  you become fertilizer.

Go residents! 

Short version is its the story about people up in town giving google the finger about a datacenter being dropped into their back yards and wiping out more farmland. Unfortunately its not really "over and done" in the bigger picture, as the concrete machine will win in the end, since this state has declared war on nature, farms, trees.   But, its nice to at least win once in a while and piss them off, even if its short term.

https://futurism.com/future-society/residents-shut-down-google-data-center

Anyone else post stuff on YT?

As mentioned in another room i recently started the adventure to publish the ZoeBot music and ran into a couple things that i don't understand and not seeing it out on the web..

1 - uploaded a single video. It does NOT show in the video list, but others i did do..   But, if i move to view the playlist its with, it shows..    I thought it ate a video, uploaded it again, still nothing. Then tried the list view just by chance, both were there.. ( and got rid of the dup while i was there )

2 - batch upload. only about 80% show up. Here as a batch they would still be in draft mode so no playlist association yet.  Same sort of event here. Upload 10, 7 or 8 show in draft, and i cant upload another as my daily limit of 10 was reached.    But since they are not attached to a playlist yet, i cant see it via the workaround above.

Clearly they are not being 'blocked' since i can either see them in the list, or the next day do it again and if i send it ot a list i can see it.    Where the hell are these rogue videos hiding? same place my socks and tupperware lids go?

I don't want to blame them directly, since they are being ordered to by several states now.. But they are starting to roll out the 'prove you are 18' by uploading your ID. Or you are stuck only seeing children's videos.  But i guess at least the are not cutting access totally, like others will. ( and they must retain records of everything you watch, and give it to the government on a regular basis )

Soon, every major player on-line will have to comply.  Will be the end of the internet for me for the most, part as i refuse. 

And 'its for the kids' is a bunch of nonsense. its not, never has been.

Hate to break it to you, but that is how the entire entertainment industry has worked, since day one.

If its male or female they put out there, all depends on the demographic of the audience. 

Mon Nov 10 2025 00:35:39 UTC from darknetuser

Something that has always bothered me LOTS is the fact Youtube viewers have this tendency to empower talentless videomakers just because they are hot women. It is not because these gals are successful, but because an horde of drooling men is devaluating every other man in town. Kind of shitty. I think a lot of videomakers know this because there are a bunch of them making homesteading and farming videos with the sort of makeup and clothing you don't use when you are going to plant okra. The pandering is so obvious.

In that regard, I must commend that gal who has a horse channel with a video in which she teaches her horse how to kiss her in the mouth. Absolutely "I don't give a damn for likes" vibes.

Anyway, case in point, I recently ran into this Youtube gal called "TheBackgroundNPC" and, while she is banking on her feminity to generate viewers, her persona has been manufactured in such a professional way I think it is fucking impressive. Seriously, whoever is her producer or image assistant deserves a raise with immediate effect. Instead of taking the easy path and just being hot and wearing revealing clothes, she poses as a soothing, modest conservative girl. Even the camera position is designed to make her seem in a weaker position than the viewer. She is tapping at a (nowadays) forgotten demographic of young videogamers who want a traditional wife. So yeah in the end of the day she is manipulating the lower instincts of the audience, but the manufacturing of her persona is so damn good I want to hire her PR consultant.

Her videos are very meh, though, but I don't think that is what she is selling.

I think we are just noticing it more..   But i could be wrong too.

Mon Nov 10 2025 13:37:12 UTC from darknetuser

2025-11-10 13:11 from Nurb432
Hate to break it to you, but that is how the entire
entertainment industry has worked, since day one.

I am aware, but I think it is getting more extreme each year. Which was my point, or at least one I was making. Which is the reason why I find it curious they managed to make a hot Youtube female persona precisely by backpedaling back to sanity just enough and then using clever presentation tricks.

At least the sluts are human creators.  The whole platform is flooded with AI slop now.

In practical terms, its not much different than the increased use of cheap CGI over the decades.

Real movies stopped with Blade Runner.   My understanding it it was pretty much the last 'true' movie, that used actual miniature models and real 'sets', instead of green screen.  I think the scenes of them on the roof fighting, the backdrop was an actual oil panting.. ( cleaned up a bit during editing to make it more realistic )

I could be wrong but related, i think some series that Amanda Tapping was in was 100% green screen.    The just would walk into the green room, pretend they were doing stuff, reading their lines. and the rest was all CGI...  I read they had a hard time with it, since there was nothing there.. but each other.  ( and head similar about early Avenger movies.. it wasn't a new concept, but people were not yet used to it )

Fri Nov 14 2025 02:46:33 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

At least the sluts are human creators.  The whole platform is flooded with AI slop now.

 

Fri Nov 14 2025 13:21:36 UTC from Nurb432

In practical terms, its not much different than the increased use of cheap CGI over the decades.

Real movies stopped with Blade Runner.   My understanding it it was pretty much the last 'true' movie, that used actual miniature models and real 'sets', instead of green screen.  I think the scenes of them on the roof fighting, the backdrop was an actual oil panting.. ( cleaned up a bit during editing to make it more realistic )

I could be wrong but related, i think some series that Amanda Tapping was in was 100% green screen.    The just would walk into the green room, pretend they were doing stuff, reading their lines. and the rest was all CGI...  I read they had a hard time with it, since there was nothing there.. but each other.  ( and head similar about early Avenger movies.. it wasn't a new concept, but people were not yet used to it )

Fri Nov 14 2025 02:46:33 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

At least the sluts are human creators.  The whole platform is flooded with AI slop now.

 

 

I'm going to see Blade Runner on a big screen with a real orchestra playing the Vangelis soundtrack in January.  My first experience with the movie was renting it in 1983-84 from our video store and watching it on a 27" RCA console TV. 

I've never seen it in a real theatrical experience. I paid a LOT. I'm a little stoked. 

The "Director's Cut". I can never keep track of which that is. There are a half dozen versions. I grew up on the Detective Noir version with dubbed old school narratives by Ford as the "Dick"... and though that version is hated, I like it - it FIT the whole cyberpunk ethos that Blade Runner basically mainstreamed - which was only underground comix Heavy Metal before. 

But other cuts fleshed the story out better - I see that too. So... I don't know... I'm OK with all of them. Where they leave it ambiguous, where they make it clear Deckard is a Replicant - where they show a happy ending once you get out of LA, where the ending seems forlorn and full of despair. Maybe that is what makes this movie so posthumously great - that there is an ending for everyone. 5 of them, anyhow. But I was 11 or 12 the first time I saw it on VHS - at my stoner buddy's house who ended up going to Folsom Prison. He was rich, and pampered, and had all the gadgets, including a VHS... and I didn't even get an Atari 2600 until 1980 when I was 10. Which seemed like forever when my friends had them since I was 7 or 8.  

Weird the things that you carry with you the rest of your life. 

They also had a microwave, and popcorn - always movie quality popcorn when we had movie nights. Their parents would set us up in the living room, with a bowl of popcorn, watching a movie on the VHS on the RCA console TV, and disappear into their room. And life was good. 

Because I *never* got to go to movies - being poor white trash with an alcoholic father and a mother who escaped to bingo halls from... her son and husband... 

But at Steve's house - we would go to the local video store, spend 30 minutes walking around, Steve would pick a movie - that he had already seen at the theater - that... his parents would go, "You already saw that," and he would go, "Yeah, but my buddy hasn't..." and we would go home and watch it, and it was always a winner. 

John Carpenter's The Fog, The Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Blade Runner, among others. 

But now I'm taking my wife to see it on the big screen - with a live orchestra - and I've never seen it in this format myself before... so... probably going to be some quiet crying in the theater that night - especially if they serve cocktails in the lobby. :D 

Sat Nov 15 2025 15:34:05 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar

The original? That's pretty cool. Do they have a version of the film with the score removed?

i think i have them all.  Most came in that 'boxed set' with the car and pictures and unicorn. it did have 5 versions ( or at least 5 discs... one might have been a 'making of' documentary, its been in storage too long. )  I only ripped the theatrical version, so it had the correct ending, and be the one i remember watching in the cinema when it came out. I know why it was later removed, but it seemed like something important was missing to me.

If i remember right, it also has the really hard to find ( or watch/rip ) video disk release.  I could go get it out of the closet and look.  

Sat Nov 22 2025 03:32:31 UTC from ParanoidDelusions

The "Director's Cut". I can never keep track of which that is. There are a half dozen versions.