Compression artifacts will exist as long as we use lossy video compression. You can however eliminate visible to the eye artifacts with high enough bitrate, but that has always been the case.

Considering the ungodly size of raw video or even video with lossless compression, we will need lossy compression for the next century.

It will only change if the bandwidth and storage become practically free, which would require some unforseen breakthrough in technology.

Mastodon is a piece of software. I don’t see anyone saying “phpBB” or “WordPress” has a massive child abuse material problem.

Has anyone in the history ever said “Not a good look for phpBB”? No. Why? Because it would make no sense whatsoever.

I feel kind of a loss for words because how obvious it should be. It’s like saying “paper is being used for illegal material. Not a good look for paper.”

What is the solution to someone hosting illegal material on an nginx server? You report it to the authorities. You want to automate it? Go ahead and crawl the web for illegal material and generate automated reports. Though you’ll probably be the first to end up in prison.

Yeah, I really don’t know what widely used language is worse than Javascript besides php (which is hardly used in new projects).

Nope. Use it very often, though mostly usually with typescript.

Raw Javascript becomes a massive hindrance in any project past half a dozen files and 1000 lines.

Typescript makes it a lot more usable.

It is an overused joke, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Being easy to understand is one of the primary goals of any programming languages.

The problem with Javascript is that it isn’t easy to understand. Javascript is easy to write.

That’s why it’s easy for novices to pick up and why it ends up being spaghetti code. It’s very unrestrictive and allows writing very poor code that works based on assumptions and breaks when the assumptions aren’t met.

It made sense at the time because it was just a scripting language for some minor website things, and you didn’t want your site to crash if your script ran into a problem.

Now it’s being used to write full fledged applications and it’s past design choices are still haunting it.

Wow he got a death threat in an email, which also asked for his address lmao.

Poor guy. First day on the internet must be tough.

If you receive a death threat that you think is real, you contact the police and the FBI. But considering that the man who was threatening him didn’t even know his address, I struggle to think how he thought it was an actionable threat.

Don’t we already have pretty robust laws when it comes to person’s likeness?

I presume most contracts cover this aspect mainly for the purposes of marketing and future references. Of course the actors probably didn’t expect the extent the current technology could allow their likeness to be exploited.

It would probably make sense to require more specific contracts for this purpose, and have previously signed general contracts become insufficient for using actors’ likeness for this purpose.

I can’t really think of a reason those specific drinks would give you a headache.

I compared the ingredients of coke cherry zero with regular coke zero, and the ingredient lists are almost literally identical. The only difference would be in the flavoring they use, both of which are just listed as “Natural Flavors”.

The only other difference is coke cherry zero has marginally more Acesulfate Potasium or less Potassium Citrate. We can tell because their position on the ingredient list is swapped. It’s not well known, but ingredient lists are sorted from highest to lowest content.

Potasium Citrate is found in many foods, in particular in lemons, grapefruit and pomegranates. It’s added for preservation and flavor.

Acesulfate Potasium is another artificial sweetener, with sweetness on par with Aspartame. Like aspartame, it’s a very well studied food additive and is deemed completely safe by regulators.

But again, both drinks contain them, so even if we disregard that they are safe, the small difference in content is very very unlikely to cause any effect.

And you don’t have to be an idiot to be susceptible to confirmation bias. Our brains are built to look for patterns, but sometimes they see them where they don’t exist.

As for #2, really any amount of sugary drinks is bad for you. This includes fruit juices (including “no sugar added” and freshly pressed). The problem comes from how fast your body absorbs the sugar. Sugar dissolved in water is very quickly absorbed and causes a rapid spike in blood glucose. These spikes put you at risk of developing a range of nasty conditions - in particular Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Of course drinking one can won’t immidiately give you those conditions, not unlike how smoking one cigarette won’t immidiately give you lung cancer. But like there is no “healthy” number of cigarettes you can smoke, there is no healthy amount of sugary drinks you can consume.

It’s best to avoid, but of course nobody is expected to live perfectly healthy lives, so drinking a can now and then will probably not harm you.

If you want to have a sugary drink, make sure you do not drink it on an empty stomach. Drinking it with a meal will slow down how quickly sugar is absorbed. For the same reason, eating sweet fruits like apples is perfectly healthy despite relatively high sugar content. The sugar is locked inside the solids of the fruit and is absorbed slowly.

Artificial sweeteners are usually 200-1000 times sweeter than sugar, so their content is tiny compared to sugar. A can of coke zero contains 87mg of aspartame. Aspartame has no effect on blood glucose or insulin levels. Even if it did, such a tiny amount could not cause a spike.

This is why I get agitated with headlines like these. WHO announces some study that they haven’t even published that says aspartame “might be carcinogenic” which flies in the face of decades of research and widespread usage. And thousands of fear mongering articles will push the already misinformed public to drinking sugary drinks that in contrast are practically poison.

The 2nd point in the blog post you present as a source is factually incorrect:

2. Artificial sweeteners contribute to chronically high insulin.

The link (bolded by me) in the following text

One of the most commonly used artificial sweeteners in diet sodas, aspartame is particularly damaging to the brain.

Goes to a page titled “Can Sugar Affect Your Cognitive Ability?”. They didn’t even link to the thing their text is claiming.

How can you take this trash seriously?

And personal anecdotes are absolutely worthless in discussions like this. Artificial sweeteners are consumed by a massive portion of the population. Any person who falls ill is likely to have consumed artifical sweeteners, so they will have incredible correlation with every disease on the planet.

Probably because many of them have a non-negligible amount of caffeine.

Aspartame does not cause headaches.

1. No, aspartame does not give you a headache. It’s probably the caffeine that’s present in many sodas, such as coke. There is no known biological mechanism for aspartame to give you a headache. It’s just confirmation bias.

2. The main harm of sugary drinks are the incredibly harmful effects from huge insulin spikes and damaging your liver. Teeth is pretty low on the list.

3. Diet soda drinks are still harmful to your teeth because of their high acidity. Not as harmful as sugary drinks, but still. It’s the only proven major health concern of diet sodas.

You don’t trust the FDA after you’ve read that they conclude that aspartame is safe, which is in line with over 100 other countries’ regulatory agencies?

Wait until you read what the FDA has to say about water.

What makes you think that stevia or “natural” sweeteners are better?

At the very least, they have to go thought an industrial process of extraction that can leave unwanted chemical agents in the final product. And anything naturally grown is a subject to be contaminated with pesticides and other unwanted substances.

The difference between “possibly cancerous” and “fully cancerous” is that the former is not confirmed to have the property of causing cancer.

Radiation on the other hand is known to be carcinogenic.

To use your analogy, we know that there are bacteria that cause infections and bacteria that are harmless to humans. Let’s say we have bacteria A that is known to cause infection but not always in everyone. Then we have a bacteria B, which is potentially able to cause infection. We don’t know for certain that it can, but we also don’t know that it can’t.

And yes, it’s a pretty fucking useless designation, and WHO is wasting everyone’s time and causing undue panic. Let’s not forget how they completely fucked the world with their atrocious handing of Covid in the early stages of the outbreak.

Unsweetened is a subclass of “zero/no sugar”. No sugar added is a completely separate thing.

No sugar added does not mean the product doesn’t contain sugar or that it’s not sweet. It only means there was no extra sugar added during the preparation. A “no sugar added” fruit juice, jam or even ketchup is still going to be sweet.

Something like pure maple suryp qualifies as no sugar added despite being 99% sugar.

Not cancerous whatsoever. It’s approved for use worldwide and it’s one of the most studied additives on the planet.

It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.

Like the other “scary” “it causes cancer” studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it’s carcinogenic.

Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human’s bodyweight.

So then buy unsweetened tea. We already have a term for things that aren’t sweet.

https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Leaf-Unsweetened-Brewed-Calories/dp/B015Z6WJDY/

I seriously don’t understand why you want the “no sugar added” label to have factually incorrect requirements.

No sugar added usually just means it’s full of sugar originally found in the product. A “no sugar added” apple juice will still have an insanely unhealthy amount of sugar.

I don’t know why you think it should mean no sweeteners. (most) sweeteners are categorically not sugar. If you want something not sweet, the label you’re looking for is “unsweetened”.

Besides, sugar is much worse for you than any artificial sweetener.

Because he spent all his liquid cash to buy Twitter and had to take on additional loans.

If you emptied your bank account for $20,000 and loaned an extra $5,000 to buy a BMW which constantly needs maintenance, an extra $40 might sound pretty good.

Yes you might have a house worth $500,000 but you would not be happy if you had to sell it or take loans against it.