Yesterday, I started watching a video on YouTube but closed out of my browser (Firefox) only a few minutes into the video.

I've got my Firefox set to delete all cookies, history, form data, etc on every close. (Pretty much everything but bookmarks.) The image on this post is a screenshot of my relevant settings.

Today, after having exited my browser and fully shut down my computer for a while, I remembered the video and decided to continue watching it.

In Firefox, I searched for the video (I used the search term "gnu taler" -- something worth looking into especially for folks interested in this particular Lemmy community by the way). In the search results, the video I was searching for showed the red bar at the bottom indicating I'd watched only the first few minutes of it.

Which seems weird given that I'd cleared all my browser data since I watched the first few minutes.

So I did some experimentation. I closed my browser completely again and opened it back up, searched in YouTube, and it still had the indicator. I updated to the latest version of Firefox in the Arch package repository. Same indicator. I tried the same in Chromium (which I've also got set to delete all browser data on close). Still the indicator. I installed Tor Browser Bundle (specifically torbrowser-launcher on Arch Linux), changed none of the default settings at all, and searched in YouTube. The indicator is present. In Tor Browser Bundle.

W

T

F

?

Anybody have any idea how that's possible?

My only guesses are:

• That search is so niche as to be literally unique (which if true makes me sad -- I really hope GNU Taler takes off and becomes widespread) and YouTube is using that to identify me.
• YouTube doesn't know where I left off at all. Not even my browser knows (because if it was my browser keeping track, it wouldn't persist between browsers). It's something else on my system that my browsers depend on or tap into.

The only other pieces of relevant info I can think to share:

• There's another video (also about GNU Taler) that I watched all the way through the same day that I started the video this post is about. It doesn't show any indicator.
• I tried searching on my phone's browser. No indicator. But then I'm not sure my phone ever shows indicators. I haven't tried this on any other devices on my network or anything.
• I still haven't watched the video in question. Heh.

Thanks in advance for any insight you might have.

Edit: Sorry for neglecting to mention previously that at no point during any of the above did I log in to YouTube. And the "Sign in" button was visible at the top of the page indicating I wasn't logged in. Since multiple people asked, I figured I should edit my OP with that info.

Edit2: Two more things to mention. I think some folks are thinking I copied the link and pasted it between browsers during the above test or something? The only reason the timestamp is included in the link I posted above is because when I copied it into this post, I didn't think to remove the timestamp. But I didn't do anything like copying the link from the search results in one browser and then paste the link into TBB or anything. In each separate browser, immediately after opening the browser, I went to YouTube (by typing "youtube.com<enter>" into the address bar) and put "gnu taler" into the search bar and hit enter. And in each browser, YouTube somehow remembered where I'd left off in a whole different browser -- with a different IP address in the case of the switch from Chromium to TBB. And no urls were copied between browsers in any of the above.

The other thing to mention. Changing my search term to the full title of the video ("Building an Open Source Payment System - Sebastian Javier Marchano, Taler System" sans quotes) gives the relevant video as the top search result, but no "left off" indicator. And I'm in the Firefox in which I first noticed it had remembered.

Oh, actually, one more thing to mention. After posting this, I continued watching. I'm probably about 3/4 done with it now. But I closed my browser again before completing it, reopened my browser, and searched "gnu taler". It gives the indicator, but the position of the indicator is roughly (possibly exactly) where it was when I first noticed it had remembered. Not where I left off after watching to roughly the 3/4 mark.

Edit3: Wow! Ok. I'm 99% sure folks smarter than me have hit upon what's going on here. Thanks in particular to Tony N and Chozo for the right answer. It looks like YouTube has a feature where, depending on your search terms, it may automatically skip you a certain ways into the video. (Like "oh, you searched for 'gnu taler'? Well, in this video result, this bit in the middle is the part that's relevant to your search terms, so we'll just start you such-and-such-many seconds into the video.") The red bar doesn't mean "you've watched this" at all. And YouTube isn't "remembering me" between browsers. It's just consistently (as long as I use the specific search terms "gnu taler") suggesting that I start that video 273 seconds in rather than from the beginning. And anyone who searches that exact search term should get similar results... unless they're on mobile for some weird reason? That paired with the coincidence that I'm pretty sure I just happened to have stopped the video yesterday right about at the same place where YouTube recommends you start had me very confused. Whatever the case, I'm satisfied this must be the right answer. Thanks again, ya'll!

This post really isn't the usual faire of this community. Sorry about that. If there's a better place for me to put this, definitely feel free to point me there.

But, to the point of my post, before Bitcoin became a widespread cult, back when all Bitcoin was was a couple of posts on Slashdot, back when mining it was comparatively extremely easy/quick/"profitable", I mined some Bitcoin. About 1/20 of a Bitcoin. Just by, like, leaving my computer on for a month or so. And I still have access to it.

And Bitcoin is worth can be sold for $62,000 USD per bitcoin right now which makes my little 1/20 of a Bitcoin tradeable for about $3,100 of real money.

Now I know that blockchain is just straight up a scam. But I've still got this Bitcoin in a wallet on a hard drive in my posession. (I know, the wallet doesn't actually "contain" the Bitcoin. Leave me alone.)

The obvious thing to do with it would be to sell it now, but that would leave some poor chap(s) holding a $3,100 bag in a way that I wouldn't feel great about.

I could just sit on it forever. I suppose I could sell it and donate the proceeds to some cause I thought to be worthy or anti-crypto. If there were enough crypto-skeptics had cryptocurrencies and wanted cryptocurrency to die in a fire, they(/we?) could coordinate to use our collective cryptocurrency in a way that most damages the market and hopefully hastens a crash-to-zero. (But the likelihood that there'd be enough cryptocurrency in the hands of crypto-skeptics to pull that off seems low.) Or I could print out my private keys, delete them from my hard drive, and ceremonially burn the papers while chanting "web3 is going great".

And maybe this post is just me asking like-minded folks to give me permission to just sell it and leave someone holding a bag so I can buy myself a new OLED TV. Heh.

Whatever the case, I wanted to hear you folks' takes.

Edit: Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm gonna sell it.

I linked to MSN because (at least for me) it wasn't paywalled. The original source for the article can be found on the Washington Post's website here but is paywalled.

If I had a nickel for every one I've seen, I'd have two nickels, which isn't much, but it's strange it happened twice.

And I have no idea what it means.

A couple of examples:

One and two.

This was on the Netflix login page until pretty recently. I can't be the only one who thought it was unintentionally... suggestive, right?

Please tell me I'm not the only one still obsessed with these things.

Edit: Woah. I am the only one still obsessed with Animutations, aren't I? They're mine! All mine!

It bugs me when people say "the thing is is that" (if you listen for it, you'll start hearing it... or maybe that's something that people only do in my area.) ("What the thing is is that..." is fine. But "the thing is is that..." bugs me.)

Also, "just because <blank> doesn't mean <blank>." That sentence structure invites one to take "just because <blank>" as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn't want to do. Just doesn't seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.

And I'm not saying there's anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It's just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.

Edit: I thought of another one. "As best as I can." "The best I can" is fine, "as well as I can" is good, and "as best I can" is even fine. But "as best as" hurts.

And if you disagree with any of my answers, you're just wrong.

"Vindaloo" is a running joke in the series Red Dwarf to which this song is the theme song.

Apparently I'm banned from [email protected] now. That's a community for posting AI-generated images.

My feed is set to "all"/"new". So I see every post that comes into the Lemmy servers that lemmy.world federates with. Or at least those that come in while I'm on and browsing.

I downvote what I don't like. And I don't like AI-generated images. I downvote any that come across my feed. I don't seek out AI-generated images to downvite. (That feels too much like brigading.) So, I wouldn't, say, go to [email protected] and downvote every post there. Just the ones that "organically" come across my feed.

Today, I clicked "downvote" on a post from [email protected] and the down-arrow wouldn't change color to register my downvote. Lemmy's error messaging is lacking, so I had to go to my developer tools to find out for sure, but the server clearly indicated the reason why it wouldn't accept my downvote was because I was banned from [email protected] . (I can downvote posts on other sh.itjust.works communities.)

So, apparently one of the mods of [email protected] noticed I downvoted some posts from [email protected] and had never upvoted any posts in that community and decided to ban me.

I'm honestly not really sure whether I or they (or both or neither) am/are in the wrong here. But I was interested to see that just downvoting could get me banned from a community.

Anyone else been banned from any communities for similar behavior?

Over-the-counter diphenhydramine, for instance, at least in my country, says adults can take "1 to 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours."

If you decide "my symptoms aren't so bad; I'll just take one" and then two hours later your symptoms are still bad (or worse), is it safe to take a second tab then? And if you do, should you wait until "4 to 6 hours" after taking the first tablet or the second to take an additional tablet? Does it depend on the drug? (Maybe it's fine for diphenhydramine but not for ibuprophen?)

I'd imagine blood levels of any particular drug tend to quickly spike and then exponentially decay back to undetectable levels. If you take two tabs, I'd imagine that graph is just twice as tall. If you wait a couple of hours between tabs, it's got two spikes and the second is a little higher than the first (but not as high as the two-tabs-at-the-same-time spike.)

If the concern is total concentration of drug in the bloodstream at any one point, a second tab a couple hours later is less of a concern than two tabs at the same time. If the concern is total area under the curve, then probably there's no difference between two tabs at the same time and a couple of hours between. If the concern is total time spent with a blood concentration of such-and-such, I could see there being more concern with taking a second tab just a couple of hours after the first.

And maybe there are other effects that I'm not aware of. Maybe if the blood concentration kicks up to two-tabs-at-once levels, the liver kicks into high gear, clearing the drug out quicker, but if you go a couple of hours between tabs, the liver neve kicks into high gear or some such.

And maybe this question hasn't even been well studied and maybe there's not really any good answer. But if there is, I'm curious.

This guy's one of the few and the brave actually saying publicly that AI is a bubble. I think most other public figures are scared to be proven wrong and made to look foolish. Doctorow's not committing to the idea that AI will never have any use, but at least he's countering a lot of the ridiculous claims the "AI Industry" is making lately.

I've got a pretty severe sensitivity to -- of all things -- sugar. (I know, "sugar" isn't very precise, but I'm pretty sure it's either glucose, fructose, or sucrose.) I virtually never eat anything with added sugar or anything with any significant amount of natural sugar. And I've eaten that way for like 20 years now. I'm practically blind to half the produce department (any "sweet" fruits like apples, pears, cherries, grapes, oranges, etc) at the grocery store, let alone the candy isle.

First off, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, none of this is legal advice. Go get legal advice from a lawyer.

A lot of us know by now a little about how Mickey Mouse being in the public domain (at least in the U.S.) works. You can use the version of Mickey from the animations (Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy) that entered the public domain this year because they were released in 1928. So long as you:

• Don't use them in ways that would make it seem that your work was made by Disney and
• Don't use any elements of Mickey from later works which are still under copyright.

So no Donald Duck. No Goofy. No gloves. You can't make his pants red. Etc. Right?

However, let me present a few movie posters from 1928 which are now in the public domain:

[!A black and white movie poster for the animation "Steamboat Willie" reading "Disney Cartoons present a Mickey Mouse sound cartoon. 'Steamboat Willie'. A Walt Disney Comic by UB Iwerks. Recorded by Powers Cinephone System". Mickey Mouse is at the helm/wheel of a steam-powered paddleboat and is depicted wearing gloves. Given that the image is in black and white, the gloves are white.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mickey_Mouse_Color_Stock_Poster_(Celebrity_Productions_era,_1928).jpg)

[!A color movie poster for the animation "Steamboat Willie" reading "Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie." Mickey Mouse is depicted at the helm/wheel of the boat pretty much in the same pose as in the opening scene of the movie wearing a blue hat, red pants with yellow buttons, and yellow shoes. (But no gloves.)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie.jpg)

[!A color movie poster reading "Celebrity Productions Inc. presents a Mickey Mouse sound cartoon. A Walt Disney Comic. Drawn By UB Iwerks. The world's funniest cartoon character. A sensation in Sound and Syncrony. Sound Recorded By Powers Cinephone, The Voice of the Movies." Featured on the poster is Mickey Mouse in color with yellow gloves, red pants with white buttons, and brown shoes.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mickey_Mouse_Color_Stock_Poster_(Celebrity_Productions_era,_1928).jpg)

Yellow gloves! Red pants with both yellow and white buttons! Yellow and brown shoes! And a green hat to boot!

I'd imagine all of these posters qualify as creative works that would have gained copyright protections as soon as they were made/published. And the copyright on these poster illustrations have all now expired, leaving these posters in the public domain. (Copyright-wise, at least. Trademark is a whole other kettle of worms.)

So, theoretically, all the elements you see in those posters should be fair game today. Which leads me to believe that theoretically there's no reason why people who use the public domain version of Mickey Mouse in their own works ought to avoid red pants with yellow buttons or yellow shoes. Yellow gloves are probably similar, but the case for white gloves being safe to use is probably weaker given that the only images I could find from 1928 where Mickey's wearing white gloves are black and white illustrations.

I say "theoretically" because of course law is complex and (again) I'm not a lawyer and who knows what legal arguments Disney's legal department could come up with. But I don't see any reason off the top of my head why using red-pants, yellow-shoes, yellow-gloves Mickey in your own works (so long as you don't include other elements that legitimately didn't become a thing until 1929 or later and didn't infringe on Disney's trademarks) wouldn't be virtually just as safe as avoiding colors when using the Mickey Mouse character.

All that said, I'm definitely open to being set straight on this. I just hoped to get a little discussion going about this.

I've been thinking about this for a while now.

Richard Stallman has been practically synonymous with Free Software since its inception. And there are good reasons why. It was his idea, and it was his passion that made the movement what it is today.

I deeply believe in the mission of the Free Software movement. But more and more, it seems that in order to survive, the Free Software movement may need to distance itself from him.

Richard Stallman has said some really disturbingly reprehensible things on multiple occasions (one and two). (He has said he's changed these opinions, but it seems to me the damage is done.)

He's asked that people blame him and not the FSF for these statements, but it seems naive to me to expect that to be enough not to tarnish the FSF's reputation in the eyes of most people.

And Richard Stallman isn't the only problematic figure associated with the Free Software movement.. Eben Moglen (founder, Direct-Council, and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center which is closely associated with the FSF) has been accused of much abusive and anti-LGBTQIA+ behavior over which the Free Software Foundation Europe and Software Freedom Concervancy have cut ties with the SFLC and Moglen (one and two).

Even aside from the public image problems, it seems like the FSF and SFLC have been holding back the Free Software movement strategically. Eben Moglan has long been adamant that the GPL shouldn't be interpreted as a contract -- only as a copyright license. What the SFC is doing now with the Visio lawsuit is only possible because the SFC had the courage to abandon that theory.

I sense there's a rift in the Free Software movement. Especially given that the SFC and FSF Europe explicitly cutting ties with the SFLC and Moglen. And individual supporters of Free Software are going to have to decide which parties in this split are going to speak for and champion the cause of the community as a whole.

I imagine it's pretty clear by this point that I favor the SFC in this split. I like what I've seen from the SFC in general. Not just the Visio lawsuit. But also the things I've heard said by SFC folks.

If the Free Software movement needs a single personality to be its face moving forward, I'd love for that face to be Bradley M. Kuhn, executive director of the SFC. He seems to have all of Stallman's and Moglen's assets (passion, dedication, an unwillingness to bend, and experience and knowledge of the legal aspects of Free Software enforcement) perhaps even more so than Stallman and Moglen do. And Kuhn excels in all the areas where Stallman and Moglen perhaps don't so much (social consciousness, likeability, strategy.) I can't say enough good things about Kuhn, really. (And his Wikipedia page doesn't even have a "controversies" section.) (Also, please tell me there aren't any skeletons in his closet.)

Even if the community does come to a consensus that the movement should distance itself from Stallman and Moglen, it'll be difficult to achieve such a change in public perception and if it's achieved, it may come at a cost. After all, Stallman is the first person everybody pictures when the FSF is mentioned. And acknowledging the problems with the Free Software movement's "old brass" may damage the reputation of Free Software as a whole among those who might not differentiate between the parties in this split. But I feel it may be necessary for the future of the Free Software movement.

That's my take, anyway. I'll hop down off of my soap box, now. But I wanted to bring this up, hopefully let some folks whose ideals align with those of the Free Software movement about all this if they weren't already aware, and maybe see what folks in general think about the future of the Free Software movement.

Often times, when looking at the comments on a post, some comments are hidden and replaced by a button that (in Lemmy-UI) says "1 more reply ➔" or "2 more replies ➔" (or in Lemuroid says "1 more replies") or some such. I assume the intent of this button is to cause the hidden comment to be shown, but the button never works for me.

I have similar issues in both Lemmy-UI and in Lemuroid. In Lemmy-UI on Firefox (on a Raspberry Pi 4 running Arch Linux Arm, but I doubt that matters), if I click the button, it turns into a loading graphic which spins forever. If I tap the button in Lemuroid, a loading bar appears at the top of the screen for a little under a second and then disappears, but the "1 more replies" button remains and the hidden comments do not appear.

Given that this is an issue in both interfaces I use, maybe that means it's a Lemmy issue and not specific to Lemmy-UI or Lemuroid? Not sure.

Looking in Firefox's Developer Tools, it appears that when I click that button, it does send a request to the server and the response is a 200. There's no output in the "console" tab when I click the button.

I did go look at the issue trackers for both Lemmy and Lemmy-UI, but haven't found any relevant bugs.

Actually, I'm not really sure what criteria are used to decide whether a post should be hidden by default. But I do moderate one community and if the hidden posts are the ones that are most downvoted or some such, it's probably important for mods to be able to see those hidden posts.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: Well, today it's working in Lemmy-UI but only in some threads. In Lemuroid, the one that did work in Lemmy-UI just shows as expanded without me having to expand it, so I'm not sure about Lemuroid. Weird.

>If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. . . .

—Thomas Jefferson

Never thought I'd see the day.