We can’t do anything except shoot you down. What you want doesn’t exist, not because people are choosing not to create it but because they can’t create it. The ‘paranormal’ isn’t real. Anyone that believes it is is insane, and insane people are not known for their ability to tell compelling stories and hold cameras steadily, nor are they known to pursue and publish media invalidating their own delusions. If you want to see convincingly shot footage, watch the X-Files, it’s a beautiful show. But that’s the best you’re going to get. Because the content you crave does not exist.

In this thread you’ve implied repeatedly that you’re aware of the implausibility of paranormal phenomenon but you’re still going to watch:

“YouTube pranks, edited garbage, and an endless amount of inhumane content”

And if you’re just doing this for amusement, the Why Files does some pretty entertaining stuff reporting on ‘real’ (clarification: these are actual things people believe not just made up for their episode) conspiracies and paranormal events, I can enjoy them even as a skeptic. But if you’re doing this out of actual interest, belief or just to give both sides of the argument a fair shake, I really really really hope that you will take my advice and figure out if this is truly important, or if this is you self-harming out of stubbornness. Because I have been there and it’s really bad for you.

I really think you should reflect on the reason why there is absolutely zero evidence of paranormal phenomenon.

Schrödinger was criticizing the interpretation of quantum mechanics, Tesla generated way more garbage than he did innovations, the Drake equation is a novelty (and Drake repeatedly clarified that it was conjecture until we find any evidence of ETI), SETI is awesome.

Everything you just listed is an example of science investigating the tangible aspects of observed phenomenon.

but no one ever shows proof of anything they claim to be real.

Hmmmmm.

Plumbing. People seriously underestimate the damage a bad leak can do to a structure.

The problem there isn’t the use of the organs, but that they’re murdering someone to harvest the organs.

Slightly less “Quantum is an advertising term only used when you have nothing innovative” than usual! They’re apparently using a QRNG (Quantum random number generator), instead of the usual CSRNG (Cryptographically Secure pseudoRandom Number Generator). This is hypothetically more secure, but in practice there’s no difference and this is purely a marketing gimmick.

Er… Think this one is on OP, or at least what the almighty algorithm shows based off browsing history. There is an astounding amount of grill-bonk-man-harem content out there.

No love for @SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world ? They’re not always the best troll, but man are they prodigious.

Even with their recent efforts to squeeze money out of their users by killing adblockers and pushing even more intrusive ads, they still don’t make a profit. And that’s with 100% of the market share. There just isn’t a way for another company to come in and unseat youtube, and youtube knows it. Hence why they feel they can get away with pretty much any anti-consumer move they can dream up.

They just have to keep users happy enough that nobody at microsoft/amazon decides to start their own money pit out of spite, and all that tasty data remains theirs for the indefinite future.

Are you using hardware acceleration? I frequently watch livestreams while gaming and have never had this issue except for when hardware acceleration was disabled.

Yeah, back when there was a small barrier of effort to get to the internet. It didn’t really keep anyone out, but it meant that if you were here it was because you wanted to be, not because it had been made as easy as possible to access in an attempt to lure you in and extract data through every pore of your being. Lemmy feels similar, in that you have to make an account on an instance and thats slightly harder than clicking a single button to sign in with FB or Google.

I miss being able to share the cool things I find IRL. I made the mistake of doing that once with a beautiful little grove in a state park. The post went viral on insta and within a week the spot had been trampled flat and the rangers had to put up chain link to keep people out. Just awful.

“The cloud is just other people’s computers” - It’s inconvenient, but those computers are real, physical objects subject to oversight from real, physical law enforcement.

Win10 LTSC-E is pretty great. Shame you can’t use it without a large scale government contract…

Discord is built on Chromium, which is the main concern I have heard. I’ve yet to see any evidence that they’re mining user data, which is a valid concern. They’ve done a shockingly good job of funding themselves without selling user info thus far.

Because having an active community on github or a forum is a very different feeling to having one on IRC or discord. They’re entirely different tools. IRC-style communities have always been more active than github, discord is just the latest iteration of that concept.

Hosting documentation or issue tracking on discord, though, I hate that. For tech support its… fine, for getting informal feedback or engaging with users its great. Anything archival its a goddamn crime.

The worst is when people try to use discords forum features, which are the worst of all possible worlds…

Oh damn, thats cool! Never heard about that before.

I’m unfamiliar with Directional Chat outside of things like VRchat, how that work if you’re not manipulating your position in space relative to other users?

MAPLE, which is super cool:

As I understand it, the primary goal of the MAPLE project is to demonstrate interference beam management on a space-borne object, which is incredibly cool. I’m not able to find the actual paper (it’s very possible it simply hasn’t been finished yet, it looks like the experiment is ongoing) but it’s extremely interesting technology. However, atmospheric attenuation is going to reduce the power from what sounds like maybe a milliwatt to infinitesimal amounts. The reason this technology might be able to beam power to anywhere is that being in space means you have access to essentially unlimited power. There’s no real-estate concerns, so you can put as many solar panels as you want up there, and thus you don’t have to care about losses.

Obviously there’s some engineering realities that might conflict the “unlimited power” bit, but I’m glossing over things like we have a limited amount of silicon with which to make solar panels and so forth. However, since this technology is in it’s absolute infancy, it’s hard to draw conclusions. It may not work at all, and the power being beamed down is in a unit smaller than nanowatts. It’s just too new of a technology to know if it even works, given these articles are from about 6 months ago and are talking about the 6 months worth of data crunching the team has to do, I really doubt we’ll hear anything substantive any time soon.

Roads that charge cars:

These will never work. Not for theory reasons, but engineering realities I won’t gloss over. To be clear, there’s no physics-founded reason we couldn’t stick multiple overlapping inductive loops on the surface of every single road and power cars that way, it’s just that inductive charging is incredibly inefficient, so the power you’re pumping through all those loops in every road to charge up an electric car will be astronomical. And god forbid there’s potholes, exposing those insanely high amperage coils. (And before you ask, the dwell time of an electric car at a red light is so short as to be practically nonexistent). This is the same issue as the solar road tiles - it just doesn’t work to do it like this, and there’s much better and more efficient ways to use those resources that would go into the roads. And no, inductive coupling like in these roads is not RF-to-DC power transmission (unless you want to get really really pedantic about particle physics…)

A watt or two to trickle feed the phone:

Unfortunately there’s this thing called the inverse-square law, which doesn’t stop applying even when you have highly directional antennas. I’ll spare you the math (lets be honest, I’m too lazy to type and format it all up), but the takeaway is that to get a couple watts you’ll need hundreds of watts being output by the transmitter, and that’s just for a couple feet of transmission. And lets be clear, this is absolutely not safe. “This is literally radiation damage to your cellular structure” levels of not safe. For a simulation of what it would take to get enough power to meaningfully charge a phone at 10’, go jam something into the door latch on your microwave, open the door and stand 5’ away from it. That’s the power we’re talking about here. (please don’t do this, it’s an even worse idea than it sounds). It would be illegal to sell transmitters this powerful for consumer applications, because with much exposure it would kill you.

I want to be clear about something, systems that work on similar principals to this do work and they are in use today. You can even see videos of one of the umpteen billion “wireless power” companies that’s pulled this same shtick on kickstarter or wherever, there’s been dozens of them. They have videos of them charging a phone! Of course, they’re not really charging the phone, they just use a capacitor bank that’s trickle charged from an antenna array (which then pulses the charges so you phone trips into charging mode, but it won’t actually charge, it will just turn the icon on on your phone…) or, in several cases, just a battery pack hidden off screen. The systems that do work, and that we have in operation, transmit minuscule amounts of power. Way less than you could use to light an LED. They’re just used for powering incredibly lower power equipment, like RFID tags or the tattletale strips in stores. Power transmission just loses too much energy while being transmitted for this to ever be practical for anything more than that. Maybe MAPLE will change this, interference modulation turning out to be the holy grail of aiming ultra-tight beams, but I’m pretty skeptical that it will do anything on the consumer scale.