114 karma · joined January 23, 2021
After my Kodi 19 broke, I went searching for some discussion on the plugins I use. Pretty much every discussion I saw where the dev of the broken plugin acknowledged the transition did so during last summer.
Not sure if it was just coincidence, or if Kodi said, "look, y'all, we're moving forward! Get on it!"
That makes this release a little better. Still doesn't make releasing a known-unmaintained version on a platform more palatable, though.
I'm a former "industry" professional, so I have the utmost respect for people being compensated on whichever end they process/release material we prefer. (Usually Blu-ray, but sometimes digital if we can't find Blu-rays.) In fact, it's so important to us that we have only a handful of pre-owned movies/TV; all stuff we can't buy new.
Obviously it's a bit of a legal gray area to rip Blu-rays we purchased, but we don't do anything that would prevent content creators/platforms from receiving compensation. We don't format-shift (i.e. If we have a DVD, we don't obtain an HD version) and only rarely platform-shift (i.e. download a Blu-ray if we've only purchased the streaming rights) if that's the only option.
Legally shady but ethically sound stuff we do:
- torrent TV shows that we own the same-resolution discs for (it's faster than ripping/transcoding hundreds of hours of video)
- torrent TV/movies we've purchased effectively-lifetime licenses for (willing to remove if for a good ethical reason a platform revokes said license; hasn't happened yet though)
- pre-download Blu-rays we order if it'll take some time to get here
- torrent the very limited number of broadcast TV shows we record and strip ads from (this is probably the most questionable thing we do, ethically)
Far as music, most platforms at this point allow some form of non-DRM download, so we generally don't do anything unusual. We use several unauthorized plugins for our music streaming services, but do not download/keep anything we haven't purchased.
We absolutely do not "preview" stuff. If we want to "preview", we rent the movies and watch them there. If we choose to purchase, we may torrent, but generally just wait to rip.
No doubt we're in a minority, but Kodi is an invaluable way for us to consume our ethically-sourced content. (Even our children's friends seem to have ethics with this stuff, i.e. if they "gift" some MP3s to a peer, they'll also give them a gift card so they can purchase that content. Not sure how common it is, but I certainly don't remember doing this during the early days of CD ripping and Napster.)
I don't have a huge problem with some people fudging a little more than we do, but take great offense at people who use it simply for the pirating plugins.
I don't, for example, take much issue with people geo-shifting stuff they can't otherwise obtain. (The content creator is still in the same $0 profit situation their publisher put them in.) But stuff like Popcorn Time is really not cool for pretty much anyone except people who can't obtain the content for whatever reason.
Make of it what you will. But guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Chances are most don't work in the new version and you'll be left with everything you're used to broken.
Kodi 19/Matrix broke that, however, so now we're just streaming directly from the NAS until it's resolved on Emby's end.
While the 2 experiences are nearly identical, we like the per-user/other device stuff that Emby brings in. (As well as outside-the-home streaming when we travel.) If you don't need or care about that stuff, just pulling from a central data store works very nicely in stand-alone Kodi.
The Emby and Plex apps are trash compared to Kodi if you care about flexibility/customization.
It's never been fun to upgrade Kodi (something inevitably breaks), but this is by far the worst upgrade of all. And now to find out that the automatically updated version that showed up on my Android TV is unmaintained..?! That takes the cake.
Even though Python 2 was set to EOL with 6 years warning (12 if you count the original timeline), Kodi didn't announce a change until last summer, I believe. So of course the vast majority of completely useful, basic utility plugins weren't updated, there was no enforced transitional upgrade path, and now we're stuck with an unmaintained Android version that contains this massive codebase change and 80% broken plugins.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for all the work the Kodi devs do. It's an immensely helpful program and by far the most used in my house. But this whole thing reeks of bad decisions.
There are no doubt going to be a significant number of issues found once plugins are upgraded (how can you tell the new system is stable enough for release when there are so exceedingly few plugins that work anymore?), and Android users are indefinitely in the dark as issues arise.
This version didn't have to be pushed out to Google Play, and knowing there was no maintainer makes such a choice hugely irresponsible. "We had to upgrade from Python 2.6 in case there are CVEs in the now defunct version!" makes sense. But now we have an unmaintained version in Android that broke everything, so if there are CVEs... guess who's not getting them? (Granted, it's sandboxed, so I'm not sure the concern makes a lot of sense on Android, but still.)
The Python 2/3 netsplit has been such a thorn for so long, so I can't entirely blame the Kodi devs. And it's not like a Kodi 18/19 netsplit would be a "good" idea. But this automatic, breaking change with no warning and no maintainer is seriously bad form.
"We're lucky we got the final Android 19 Matrix build out at all," is definitely not how I see it. "Lucky" would be Android users missing this very broken upgrade until they got all their ducks in a row and maybe more plugins are updated.
(And the whole, "well fix it/maintain it yourself," is a pretty poor response to bad project management in a project of this size, in case anyone is so inclined to suggest that. I maintain enough other OSS right now, thank you.)
walks off stage
While a Raspberry Pi is a pretty simple way to get Linux/Kodi on the TV, getting it to integrate well is a whole other story. (Remotes, CEC, other services like Netflix, etc.)
I'm your typical Linux hacker of 20 years, but even I switched from Raspberry Pi to Nvidia Shield a couple years ago because the pain of using and maintaining it is so much lower for an interface that should be as simple as "pick and play".
Consider, for example, a bug recently introduced during a refactor at my work:
The programmer optimized a conditional based on a regex by transforming it into a simple string compare. All the tests passed, code/branch coverage was good. Except that he missed that the regular expression tested case-insensitively, and our test suite didn't test upper and lower case scenarios.
This simple mistake outlines a few flaws:
- coverage was not robust, because it didn't take into consideration the branches inside the regex (which one could interpret as a form of macro expansion)
- the limited number of inputs used to test failed to capture the broader domain of possible input
- the test did not reflect a successful refactor
Obviously this is a fairly complicated example despite a pretty simple change, and several pieces had to fail in order for this change to fail. But it affirms that even basic changes to code aren't necessarily adequately covered by TDD.
Yes, the developer who forgot to test different letter cases made a mistake. Yes, regular expressions bring their own problems. But fundamentally, the result was that passing the tests did not affirm fitness of the change. Rather, it only proved a limited subset of conditions were error-free.
Effectively, tests are loaded with false negatives, so trusting them to identify problems should be done with a massive grain of salt.
If the developer had simply copy/pasted the code he changed and compared the two, then it's exceedingly more likely that he would have noticed that his code didn't capture the full breadth of conditions in the previous code.
A bug existed in the test suite, to start, and then a bug was introduced into the codebase. A human being looking at the two lines of code as it was rewritten probably would have noticed the regression. But even a code review missed it because it was a fundamentally small change among the other, more "make sure this looks good" code.
Personally, I very much value copy/paste/compare changes and never treat the test suite for anything other than "well we haven't broken anything in any exceedingly obvious ways." Maybe you're a superhuman programmer, but I'd lean more towards "you've probably added more bugs than you realize".
But on the point of averages: the median human has two breasts and no testicles.
Right wing media was largely... not "wrong", I guess? But they didn't say a whole lot that went beyond adjective-laden editorial that was neither true nor false. (How does one quantify "a lot" or "promising", exactly?)
On the other hand, left wing media was (obviously) hugely anti-Trump, but made claims that were often entirely disingenuous and dishonest. (And in some cases, outright false.)
In both cases, neither side did a good job "reporting" the news. The right was flush with fluff, and the left chock full of half truths. In both, they simply left stuff out that was relevant.
It's hard to judge which was "worse", because both weren't honest. I'm inclined to lean on saying the left may have been worse because they engaged in an unending assault that was unquestionably more "active" at being dishonest..? But then, as Orwell said, "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist."
So... it's just a bad look all around right now. Thank goodness for beacons like Greenwald and Taibbi. (And Catherine Herridge. And I'm sure some others I'm missing.)
A tremendous amount of opposition news was false and also propaganda, so perhaps you're just picking sides. But I'm of the opinion that there is one area in which both sides could unite for the benefit of the entire country: against propaganda in any form.
Not exactly martyrdom, though. I've posted enough "Trump was demonstrably not wrong in this context" comments that have been downvoted into oblivion that my account has negative karma. So that was an inappropriate, snarky comment for me to make, and definitely not necessary to ensure downvotes.
This despite the fact that I do not support Trump, but rather oppose the tribalism that's plaguing the US. (All of which is to the benefit of media, various corporations, and sundry elite.)
In any case, very opposed to the current state of media, as they effectively shape the culture practically unchecked. I hope whether you agree or disagree with parent comment, you recognize the unfortunate and inappropriate abuses of their power, in whatever contexts you may find them.
People who dislike Trump (the majority of HN readers) are strongly biased to react negatively at the very mention of his name.
Ironically, a not-insignificant contributing reason for this is... corrupt and biased news media.
I'll patiently await my tribal downvotes, now...
If profiling blacks is an inappropriate means to discern likelihood of criminality, so too is profiling whites as a means to discern likelihood of over-forced policing.
But everyone is so stuck on the "our side vs your side" nobody seems to remember that skin color determines literally nothing about behavior.
The following traits are almost certainly far more meaningful than skin color:
- age
- gender
- upbringing
- culture
- economic status
- social status
Of course, people will argue that members of groups with particular skin colors generalize to certain tendencies in some of these traits. But that's about as useful as saying "fat is bad for you" or "germs are bad".
Well, yeah, in some instances. But if you treat everything with the nuance of a brick hitting a fly, you're gonna miss the actually important distinctions that could lead to meaningful change.
Sorry, but all this "black vs white" garbage is a load of unscientific, unhelpful, tribalistic hogwash. How about if anyone actually cares, we stop enabling the baloney racial characterizations?
Because the genetics and generalizations are utterly idiotic and useless.
Far as 1.0 in Rust, the predominant culture is to treat "0.X.x" releases roughly equivalent to a "1.x" semantic. I have run into very few issues of API breaking changes in "0.X.x" libraries, and even those are basically handed to you thanks to Rust's robust compile-time checks.
Of course your mileage may vary, but I've had a way worse time with even well-established breaks in Ruby, Python, and Go libraries. I understand your risk aversion; I am similar. But I've found Rust to be an absolute delight for stability. The shaky ground of the first few years has largely given way to impressive robustness over the last few.
I strongly urge you to consider Rust if it matches your needs. You may be quite pleased!
While there have been a few assassinations of police since the BLM riots started years ago, I'm not aware of any overt attacks on the persons in politics by the right. Obviously this is fairly fresh, so we'll see, but my point is there's talk and then there's action.
This is just a point of curiosity, not affirmations of the actions at the capitol. The plot against the Michigan governor by the right-wing anarchists strikes me as a much more credible threat than what occurred at the capitol, even though the latter is spoken about with some sort of future-telling confidence.
Whether it was because it was fashionable, a tantrum because he won in 2016, that he is just abrasive/obnoxious, or what remains to be seen. But it certainly wasn't because of a preponderance of fact and reason.
There's plenty of reason for people to criticize Trump, but the outsized hysteria is not likely something that history will look upon with affirmation.
He did end his presidency with spectacularly bad form, but even the degree to which he's blamed for some of the stuff that occurred is both hypocritical and irrational. (Again, largely fed by media and political narrative.)
That the Left emerges to think that they are somehow superior is laughable. They're sick and twisted, too. But they won't know that because of what their constantly fed.
Ironically, my wife—who is as progressive as they come—feels similarly. There is a massive disease in America right now—both sides included—and the actions of the last few years probably won't be looked upon fondly by history.
I do not dispute that the partiers should have acted more considerately. But this whataboutism does not absolve the behavior of parent, unless you suggest that one inconsiderate act should beget a like response?
And you are correct: I think less of someone who is unwilling to negotiate their opposition. I appreciate your response and willingness to challenge.
But I guess it all depends on how you frame it.
I'm being downvoted because I suggested that parent put on their grown-up pants and deal with the nuisance 1 out of 365 nights of the year.
Were the partiers rude? Yes. Were they a nuisance? Yes.
Should parent feel "proud" to passive-aggressively threaten the partiers with the force of the institutional monopoly on violence?
Uh, no.
They didn't try to talk to their neighbor. They wanted to enact vengeance. (That is, after all, the whole point of this thread.) And they are proud of their escalation without attempting any other means of resolution.
So if parent doesn't want to allow a neighbor to indulge and encroach 1 of 365 nights, okay. That's their prerogative. I disagree and think it's childish, but fine.
But they removed the humanity from the situation and with absolute cowardice anonymously threatened the neighbors the third year based on the unfounded presumption that it was intentionally antagonistic, I guess?
While I understand that much of Hacker News may not want to be bothered by the noise—and thusly my suggestion to grin and bear it is grounds for downvoting—I absolutely struggle to see why they view an attempt at human-touch resolution is inferior to threatening the police on someone.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted for this comment, as well. The trend to avoid real human interaction in favor of tattling to Uncle Sam is accelerating, so I imagine my voice is unsettling.
I appreciate your response, however. I tend to get downvoted without reply or explanation, and presumably because they disagree and not because it is out of context for the discussion, as stated in the rules. But these comments are in violation of the rules, so I'll stop talking about it, now.
Thank you again for your thoughtful reply!
Where I'm from, about 3-4 times a year, people in the area will go ape wild on fireworks until the wee hours of the morning. It's not legal from both a safety and noise standpoint, but they do it responsibly, so who cares? They won't bust out the high-flying rockets unless we've had rain, they do it in their various mowed fields, they do it sober, etc.
So the only real complaint would be that it goes on until 2-3am. With a baby the last few years and agitated dogs, it's not exactly "fun" for us, but... I can live a few nights of the year with interrupted sleep while my neighbors have a grand time celebrating.
It would be one thing if their celebrations caused conflict or extremely dangerous situations—one could argue shooting fireworks qualifies—but my personal risk analysis of their behavior doesn't leave me concerned. Nobody is driving home drunk, getting into fights, etc.
So who cares?
I'm sure someone in this world may be inclined to complain about odor when I smoke meats a few times a year (I don't think any sorts live around me though), but I would expect the same kind of consideration that I extend others when they very seldomly and gently encroach on my comfort.
I guess what I'm getting at is this: it seems that the parent poster is the self-centered one. I acknowledge that I don't understand their situation, but I find it exceedingly difficult to fathom a scenario in which a single night a year is severely detrimental to their own well-being.
Let them have fun, ffs! What kind of party pooper is so self involved to do this sort of passive aggressive attack? I'm sorry, parent, but I think maybe you're the bad neighbor.
Wow. I haven't seen that form of emoticon in a long time.
Thank you for sharing, fellow time traveler... <bg>
A lot of the debate about pandemic management boils down to criticisms of, "did it wrong," without saying what would tip the threshold in the other direction.
This is problematic because it inspires a lot of talking past one another, resentment, and miscommunication. Ultimately it turns into a churn of frustration, defensiveness, and offense.
But even if you manage to get a response to agree on what, "right," means, the depth of their example is likely shallow. (e.g. "Such and such had only 12 infections because they such and such.")
This, too, is problematic, because it presupposes a ton of equivalent variables between the two countries. Population demographics, geographic structure, legal structure, culture, economic stratification, etc.
Conflation between a, "did it right," and a, "did it wrong," country is practically impossible, at least in the context of pandemic response. And anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is either ignorant, lazy, or obtuse.
If you get a satisfactory answer to your query, I'll move to the moon.
When I was younger—before the internet was in every home—I read articles about how the "information superhighway" was going to bring the whole world closer together. To my mind, that was analogous to a major city gone amok: unprecedented competition with everyone vying for attention.
One guy paints his sign on his window. The next guy lights up his sign. The next backlights a plexiglass sign. The next uses neon. The next blinks his neon. And so on.
It took some time, but we're about at the point of maximum stimulus on the internet. And so to compete, the messaging follows a similar pattern. And eventually some people believe what they read. And others believe what they write.
Those that believe what they write become desensitized. Those that believe what they read become indoctrinated. And you're left with this emergent characteristic of a chaotic system stuck in feedback loops.
What you read as overstated, others will read as gospel and damn you for underplaying the emergency. And they will try to shout louder than the next, because everyone is a storefront for something; profit, or power, or ego, or social status.
So what's an apocalypse?
Not global climate change.
The apocalypse is what you witness as you try to decipher and pick apart the insanity that has become not only the internet, but soon the whole of humanity.
The climate change cathedral had it right all along: we are the apocalypse. But they got wrong the cause.
The cause is not climate change. Or fascism. Or racism. Or even hatred.
The cause of our apocalypse is us, by virtue of our connected hyper-competition. The apocalypse is the "human superhighway."
Sometimes such sources turned out not to be anyone of significance. In other cases, they turned out to be instances of hearsay, or even outdated and irrelevant to the context.
It is shocking that a community such as Hacker News can assert demand for all manner of sources in the scientific and technical fields, but when it comes to news, they are more than willing to accept articles in which anonymous, unverifiable sources dominate.
One could argue that they defer their trust to the integrity of the news source. And to a point, this is reasonable. But it is also reasonable to draw attention to its potential for abuse, especially in "technically true" but "functionally dishonest" ways.
I just think that's hard for some people to acknowledge this potential point of failure/abuse.
But as a centrist, I want to be one to affirm that your statement has been demonstrably true in many (but not all) instances over the last many months and years. (And as a general trend throughout history.)
Those who have power in a given domain tend to—at least eventually—wield their power in an unbalanced way. This criticism does not legitimize actual fake news, but does acknowledge that such tools to limit fake news can—and often are—used to also limit undesirable opposition speech.
Case in point: Facebook, which tends to favor right-leaning speech, recently banned (and then revoked said ban) of several socialist groups on their platform. While they cite technical reasons, it is feasible that it was a human decision among those in power who wished to limit "opposition" speech. Of course, it could have legitimately been a bug, but it's certainly not believed so by those affected.
Case in point, NYT effectively reframed The 1619 Project well after it was published, after they ignored a significant number of criticisms from some of the best historians, and after winning a Pulitzer Prize.
I'm going to guess that most people are completely unaware that they eventually acknowledged that it was fake news.
I ask because I don't see social media posts about the project labeled as "disinformation". Is that because it's self-acknowledged at this point, despite already establishing itself as "real"? Is that because the fact-checkers are unaware of the updates?
I'm very curious how a more complicated scenario such as this affects people's understanding of the fitness of a piece of work.
Any insights or studies that I've missed?
I think maybe that's psychological bias at play and not, say, actual affirmation that the system is resilient, let alone adequate. The number of downvotes I've gotten without a single reply is quite suggestive of this.
Seriously disappointed in this community of some of the most enlightened technical and scientific minds in the world, right now...
Probably as many as review their grocery store receipts, I'd guess. Which is to say, practically none.