Ha! Ads be gone!

On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:


5) The TARDIS / TURDIS video: you have been kind and humble in
talking about that.

I was just being myself, Snit. I respond to you in the manner in
which you choose to respond to me. Be a dick, get treated like one.

I get how you lack self-awareness but that is not the topic here. The video
is.

https://youtu.be/jYqMGjGiqHg

You asked me to explain how I made that... I have responded saying I am happy
to, though I am curious if you can tell what is faked (obviously the blue box,
but what else... can you tell)? You have not mentioning anything else. Which
is good -- it suggests the other "fakery" in that video was done reasonably
well.


Don't be, get treated like a human being. Very simple concept. I
asked, you danced, I've seen nothing offered by you to reproduce any
aspect of the video. You don't owe me anything, though. A '**** off'
works just as well as your long delayed and drawn out horse****,
does, Snit.

I have been very clear I am quite happy to talk about the video. You really
have a hard time understanding what you read.

....

snipped your whining and denying of reality -- not interested

Your ignorance of the tech you use does not make the number go away from my
phone records. These videos are in no way faked.

https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8
https://youtu.be/xNvMu5fwUxQ

100% as I say they are. You just don't like it.

....
shared with you details of how I made the TARDIS video NOT because
I am unwilling, or even that I do not want to. Actually sounds
like a good topic and one where we can focus on tech. I would like
that. I am merely asking you how you think it would be done --
there is a specific thing I faked in that video, more than just
the TARDIS itself, that I am curious if you are able to pick up
on. This might be giving too much away but it is not a specific
visual element like the pool or something... but a technique I
used to make the video look more "real" (not that I think ANYONE
would be fooled by it... it was made to have fun).

6) The Intro video: again, happy to talk to you about that. Again,
curious as to how you think it was done -- what I used is likely
not what you are thinking, assuming you have any ideas at all. But
would be a good topic.

OK, this has gotten a bit long, but it covers a lot IN BRIEF and
hopefully helps to move toward peace. I sincerely DO want that --
and I do not really get why you need me SAY I agree with things I
do not just for you to move that direction. I find it very
immature of you to make such demands. I would love to focus on 4
and 5 more than the others... and maybe 3 on HOW your phone number
showed in the records... but I am truly not interested in you
denying things I know are facts, in you demanding I pretend to
agree with you, in your obsession with David, etc. I have been
VERY kind with giving you time on that stuff -- stuff I care not
one whit about -- can you focus on tech issues instead as I want
to (even the ones you asked me about... but others are fine,
too... things we BOTH want to talk about).



I don't believe nor trust you.

I accept you have trust issues. In any case, it is clear now you have not been
able to find the other "trickery" in the TARDIS video, so now I am happy to
explain... and happy to know the trickery in it worked well. Even with you
threatening me and lying about me I am happy to move toward telling you how I
made that video:

I made the blue box image in Photoshop -- it is a combination of a TARDIS
image I found online and an image, of course, a porta-potty. Just a still
image though. Then I recorded the yard -- with the camera still (no tripod
just propped up on something). From there I brought the video into ScreenFlow
(not a high end video editor for this type of work, but it is one I know) and
added the layer of the TARDIS image. Then I have the TARDIS image fade out
(coming and going a bit). Added the sounds of the TARDIS along with the sounds
of a toilet flushing and I had the basic video down, but it looked too still.
And being still the TURDIS looked very fake (it does in the final one, too...
I get that... but far more fake!)

While there are in-program ways to lock the two layers together I exported at
high quality and re-imported into a new file. From there I added fake video
"shake" to make it look, sorta, like I was moving the camera (rewatch and you
can see where it is not real) -- but of course the image and the rest of the
video move together.

It was the fake camera-shake I was wondering if you would mention... and you
did not. Given how you are so eager to prove me doing something wrong, or
something poorly, it is good you did not see this... it implies I did it
fairly well.

Prediction: you will claim you saw it all along. Whatever. Does not really
matter.

By the way, if you want me to go into more details I can... I even have an
older version of Photoshop I have access to where I think I can open the
Photoshop file, and I know my newer version of ScreenFlow can open the older
files. Happy to show them to you in more detail. Happy to answer questions
about that video EVEN WITH you lying about what is in my phone records and you
making threats and otherwise throwing your tantrum. I am sincere in saying I
want peace, even though you are acting very poorly.

Oh, and a bonus: you also asked about my intro videos... if you want I am
happy to talk about that. I have asked if you had any ideas about how I made
it... even if you do not I am happy to share. I will give this, for now... I
made it with the same tools (though of course older versions) that I used to
make this:

https://ibb.co/C6YY4yj

The movement on that one is not nearly as smooth... thought about making it
more so but it was not worth the time. Was done very quickly just to better
explain a trap I might use in a role playing game -- though in the actual game
it would not be as deadly as the image suggests: the real point would not be
to cause great harm to the character(s) but to see what they do to get out of
the predicament. The bottle would not be made of glass and would not be very
easy to break (though not impossible).

Can you let go of your need to lie about what is in my phone records, and your
obsession with David, and your other nonsense, long enough to focus on tech?
Please! I know I would much prefer it!


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 2:49:56 AM MST, "David_B"
wrote:

On 18/08/2020 06:32, Snit wrote:
[....]
See, you deny basic facts out of your own insecurity and ignorance:

https://ibb.co/fpJry4K
https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8
https://youtu.be/xNvMu5fwUxQ

I find it amusing how much you are freaking out over it. I really do.


FYI
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/i...dress.4017295/


It is different from state to state in the US, but Gremlin gave me his direct
permission to do so:

Gremlin :
-----
You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit.
-----

Even with that, though, I understand he is acting like a child who does not
really understand what he gave me permission to do.

I have not shared what he said I could share to protect him from his own
ignorance.

And that itself is sweet enough. No need to cause him any harm -- he is
harming himself more than I ever would want to.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:


Yeah, Apple means what they say there.

Apple does, as well as the rest of us who've tried and failed to
explain the concepts to you.


I noted Apple is moving away from Intel and not supporting virtualization of
x86 Windows on Silicon.

Nothing controversial at all.

Nospam offers a tech-free denial. He just wants attention.

what you noted is incorrect as written, and you stubbornly refuse to
learn why.

But you and nospam love to pretend to be knowledgable. Oh well.

the only person who is pretending is you.

Did you ever figure out that, yes, of course phone records direct from a phone
provider can show phone numbers, even yours?

except when they can't.

They CAN. Not that they always do. Though in the example of Gremlin calling
me it did.

Are you able to understand that?

you are under the mistaken assumption that the number caller id shows
is meaningful. it is not, at least not in the way you think it is.

See: you made that up. I never said it was always accurate. You fabricated
your claim.

gremlin explained it very clearly.

And yet he does not understand even THAT his number showed up, no less how.


But it did. He just can’t handle it.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

nospam wrote:
In article yRp,
Gremlin wrote:

Amongst other things, confused I mean. Telephone technologies,
crypto, 3D printing, etc. Pick one and I can show you posts where
Snit digs himself a hole and doesn't understand the subject
matter.

i've seen a wide variety of them, but i'm curious what he said
about telephones, especially if it involved pots.

He's claiming that a voIP system I used to call him, which is
essentially a clone of dialpad when it was 'new' and an open beta -
provided him my cell number (specifically, my backup cell not the
business cell, or business landline but my backup cell) as well as
the wrong city. The voIP system doesn't have a clue who I am, or in
what part of the world I'm accessing it. It obviously doesn't know
anything about any cells or landlines I have. But, Snit claims his
caller ID provided him all this information, as if by magic.

The cell number was provided to him during the phone call, I really
*don't know* why he's trying so hard to claim I ****ed up in some way
shape or form and leaked information to him; as that's clearly not
the case here. There wasn't anything for the voIP system to leak - it
has no information on me, I don't even have my own login to it; and
nobody else does either, aside from developers and those really close
to them. So he's writing from his arsehole and went so far as to do
some video/still shot editing work to try and pull it off. Everything
was working out, so well, until he took a shot in the dark and picked
the wrong ****ing city for me. And as long as you completely ignore
how I placed the call, his story makes perfect sense. G

i saw all of that when you first explained it and he failed to
understand a word of it.

Please quote where I said ANYTHING about it. Oh. Nowhere.

You are lying again.

What I have noted is the fact his number showed up in my call records — a
fact Gremlin has yet to accept. He denies reality.

i thought there might be additional stupidity about phones.

Gremlin will push tons of stupidity to change the topic from how his number
is in my call logs direct from my phone provider.

And you will add content-free trolling where you don’t talk about tech.

You are predictable.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

nospam wrote:
In article yRp,
Gremlin wrote:


1) Apple does not care enough about Intel based Windows
enough to stick to Intel. They are moving to their own
Silicon which does not virtualize x86_64 in a way to support
current virtual Intel systems.

as you've been told, that is not only wrong, but in more ways
than one.

He really doesn't understand the material in question here.
And, by doesn't understand, he only knows the words themselves;
doesn't actually know what they really mean or the differences
with them.

yep.

I merely noted I agree with Apple he

Er, no, you didn't. Apple agrees with what myself and nospam, as well
as several others have been trying to tell you for sometime now.

in addition to that, there are countless software developers who could
also explain it, along with textbooks and even online classes.

not that it matters, since nothing will change his mind from thinking
that he is correct and the rest of the world is in error.


If you think I am wrong about Apple being in the process of moving away
from Intel and to their own Silicon, or their own Silicon doing things they
specifically say it does not, then show evidence.

But you won’t. You post content-free trolling.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:25:08 AM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

Here's the worst one: https://www.marke****ch.com/watchlist

I go there to see quotes for various stocks and funds. Reader View
eliminates all the quotes.

I noticed yesterday on a BBC news item that reader view (firefox)
removed half the text of the article itself.

I don't remember for sure the exact link, but it was not in English
anyway. I can search it if its of interest.

Reader view attempts to determine which is the main article in a web
page, and present just that content while hiding all the other content.
For sites where a web page presents a main article, the reader view
often picks the correct content (out of multiple contents). News sites
are designed to NOT have one main or primary article. They have a bunch
of bait blurbs on which you click to get to an article, but even then
that page may be written to present several articles. Not sure how any
software would know which article you consider the main article.

Stock quotes, especially a table, are NOT considered an article. Might
be content you want to see, but that is definitely not article content.
Articles aren't written inside of table elements.

I could not visit the given URL above, because it requires logging into
a Dow Jones account to drill into that site to get to that page. I
could load their home page. Yep, that's like a typical news site that
has a multitude of baits on which you click to go elsewhere. I clicked
on the biggest bait they showed today (8/18/20) titled "Why investors
should shell stocks now to get ready for the big rally that's coming"
which took me to:


https://www.marke****ch.com/story/wh...?mod=home-page

When I clicked on Firefox's Reader View icon at the right end of its
address bar, all the fluff was eradicated and just the main article
showed up. In that case, there wasn't so many "articles" on that page
that the reader view algorithm couldn't decide which was the main one.

Note that Reader View is not available on every web page. Only if the
site adds some HTML code to identify Reader View is usable will the
Reader View icon appear. If the wrong content is displayed in Reader
View, the site ****ed up by not hinting which was the main article. For
example, to tag the main article of a web page, that content should be
delimited with the article HTML tag. The algorithm grabs all the
element names, and then searches for those that seem to identify an
article. If the page isn't coded to make various content look like
articles, I'm not sure how any script is going to be able to score
non-article content that you might want to see. It's just a script.

The above URL for the "Why investors ..." page doesn't have an article
tag. In fact, it doesn't look like the page has any article, but
instead gets the article content from a CSS frame. There are element
names other than article that the algorithm searches for, but I didn't
bother to diagnose the script to list them here. I'm sure the
programmers at Mozilla know far more about HTML coding than I ever will.

If scripting is disabled (a setting in the web browser, or an extension,
like an adblocker, that defaults to disabling scripting on a web page)
then this script won't run, either. The algorithm scores sections of
the page identified by /*standard*/ HTML tags. If the content is mostly
dynamic (Javascripted) then there are no sections to find. If the code
doesn't delineate sections in the web page that are articles, it cannot
divine what other content you decide at the moment is on what you want
to focus. For Firefox, the readability.js script used for reader view
is at:


https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-rele...ability.js#625

That code is shared, so Firefox, Safari, and Edge all use it. Chrome
doesn't have a reader mode, because Google is obviously into the
advertising business. Well, in Chrome 75+, it's hidden as an
experimental flag at chrome://flags/#enable-reader-mode. Just don't
rely on experiments surviving. They cometh and they get taketh away. I
learned long ago not to rely on experiments in Chrome. You get used to
one for a while, and then Google takes it away (and does not make the
feature incorporate to Chrome). I don't know whose script Google uses
for reader mode, but my bet it isn't the shared (open source) one.

If a URL to a web page were provided that did NOT require visitors to
log into a account at that domain, perhaps others could determine why
the readability.js script failed; however, that would probably require a
more in-depth understanding of the script, and I really don't feel
impelled to dig into it. It's not that long, but I rarely use read view
mode. Instead you might want to look into the Print Edit
extension)https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...rint-edit-we/).
It is more geared to picking out elements that you want to delete from a
web page, or choosing which to include, when you print the web page;
however, it has a [Print] Preview option to show you what would show if
you printed the page, so just what you selected would appear in the
preview, or everything you deleted would be omited from the preview.
It would be up to *you* as to what you saw in the preview. That means
more work for you to choose what to see than hoping a script can figure
out what you might want to see.


Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote:

On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:25:08 AM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

"Carlos E.R." wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

Here's the worst one: https://www.marke****ch.com/watchlist

I go there to see quotes for various stocks and funds. Reader View
eliminates all the quotes.

I noticed yesterday on a BBC news item that reader view (firefox)
removed half the text of the article itself.

I don't remember for sure the exact link, but it was not in English
anyway. I can search it if its of interest.

Reader view attempts to determine which is the main article in a web
page, and present just that content while hiding all the other content.
For sites where a web page presents a main article, the reader view
often picks the correct content (out of multiple contents). News sites
are designed to NOT have one main or primary article. They have a bunch
of bait blurbs on which you click to get to an article, but even then
that page may be written to present several articles. Not sure how any
software would know which article you consider the main article.

Stock quotes, especially a table, are NOT considered an article. Might
be content you want to see, but that is definitely not article content.
Articles aren't written inside of table elements.

I could not visit the given URL above, because it requires logging into
a Dow Jones account to drill into that site to get to that page. I
could load their home page. Yep, that's like a typical news site that
has a multitude of baits on which you click to go elsewhere. I clicked
on the biggest bait they showed today (8/18/20) titled "Why investors
should shell stocks now to get ready for the big rally that's coming"
which took me to:


https://www.marke****ch.com/story/wh...?mod=home-page

When I clicked on Firefox's Reader View icon at the right end of its
address bar, all the fluff was eradicated and just the main article
showed up. In that case, there wasn't so many "articles" on that page
that the reader view algorithm couldn't decide which was the main one.

Note that Reader View is not available on every web page. Only if the
site adds some HTML code to identify Reader View is usable will the
Reader View icon appear. If the wrong content is displayed in Reader
View, the site ****ed up by not hinting which was the main article. For
example, to tag the main article of a web page, that content should be
delimited with the article HTML tag. The algorithm grabs all the
element names, and then searches for those that seem to identify an
article. If the page isn't coded to make various content look like
articles, I'm not sure how any script is going to be able to score
non-article content that you might want to see. It's just a script.

The above URL for the "Why investors ..." page doesn't have an article
tag. In fact, it doesn't look like the page has any article, but
instead gets the article content from a CSS frame. There are element
names other than article that the algorithm searches for, but I didn't
bother to diagnose the script to list them here. I'm sure the
programmers at Mozilla know far more about HTML coding than I ever will.

If scripting is disabled (a setting in the web browser, or an extension,
like an adblocker, that defaults to disabling scripting on a web page)
then this script won't run, either. The algorithm scores sections of
the page identified by /*standard*/ HTML tags. If the content is mostly
dynamic (Javascripted) then there are no sections to find. If the code
doesn't delineate sections in the web page that are articles, it cannot
divine what other content you decide at the moment is on what you want
to focus. For Firefox, the readability.js script used for reader view
is at:


https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-rele...ability.js#625

That code is shared, so Firefox, Safari, and Edge all use it. Chrome
doesn't have a reader mode, because Google is obviously into the
advertising business. Well, in Chrome 75+, it's hidden as an
experimental flag at chrome://flags/#enable-reader-mode. Just don't
rely on experiments surviving. They cometh and they get taketh away. I
learned long ago not to rely on experiments in Chrome. You get used to
one for a while, and then Google takes it away (and does not make the
feature incorporate to Chrome). I don't know whose script Google uses
for reader mode, but my bet it isn't the shared (open source) one.

If a URL to a web page were provided that did NOT require visitors to
log into a account at that domain, perhaps others could determine why
the readability.js script failed; however, that would probably require a
more in-depth understanding of the script, and I really don't feel
impelled to dig into it. It's not that long, but I rarely use read view
mode. Instead you might want to look into the Print Edit
extension)https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...rint-edit-we/).
It is more geared to picking out elements that you want to delete from a
web page, or choosing which to include, when you print the web page;
however, it has a [Print] Preview option to show you what would show if
you printed the page, so just what you selected would appear in the
preview, or everything you deleted would be omited from the preview.
It would be up to *you* as to what you saw in the preview. That means
more work for you to choose what to see than hoping a script can figure
out what you might want to see.

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source. Instead Apple decided, back in 2010 with
Safari 5, to use Apache-licensed Arc90's original Readbility extension,
and not the current one available at that time. Apparently Safari's
readability code is hosted at https://github.com/amumu/safari-reader-js,
but that hasn't been updated in 5 years. Arc90's readability.com web
site doesn't exist anymore (since late 2017 according web.archive.org).

I don't bother tracking what Safari has since I don't use Apple stuff,
so no incentive to research into whose readability script it now uses.
Is an extension listed in Safari for Reader View mode? I went to:

https://apps.apple.com/
which redirected to
https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/

When I searched on "reader view", the only candidate was at:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/readerview/id954343811
(not free, costs $3)

Firefox also has a reader view extension (free) at
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...reader-viewer/. Unless
an extension provides MORE or better results than the integral
readability code in the web browser, there wouldn't be a need for these
extensions. So, if an extension provides different readability code,
maybe using someone else's readability code would work better in Safari.
However, if the reader extension just reuses Safari's Reader API then
the extension offers nothing more besides perhaps a different GUI in
reader mode.

https://developer.apple.com/library/...theReader.html

On Aug 18, 2020 at 12:24:22 PM MST, "VanguardLH" wrote:

....

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/wh...?mod=home-page

.....

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source.

They use a lot of open source, too -- they just seem to use whatever they
think will serve them (and their customers) best.

Instead Apple decided, back in 2010 with
Safari 5, to use Apache-licensed Arc90's original Readbility extension,
and not the current one available at that time. Apparently Safari's
readability code is hosted at https://github.com/amumu/safari-reader-js,
but that hasn't been updated in 5 years. Arc90's readability.com web
site doesn't exist anymore (since late 2017 according web.archive.org).

I don't bother tracking what Safari has since I don't use Apple stuff,
so no incentive to research into whose readability script it now uses.

Makes sense. I did not really look into how Safari handled it -- just if it
did (and if it had I would have provided an image or whatever to show it).

Is an extension listed in Safari for Reader View mode? I went to:

https://apps.apple.com/
which redirected to
https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/

When I searched on "reader view", the only candidate was at:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/readerview/id954343811
(not free, costs $3)

I was speaking of the Reader View that it has by default.

Firefox also has a reader view extension (free) at
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...reader-viewer/. Unless
an extension provides MORE or better results than the integral
readability code in the web browser, there wouldn't be a need for these
extensions. So, if an extension provides different readability code,
maybe using someone else's readability code would work better in Safari.

What they have now works quite well -- though not perfectly. And I can have
sites set to use it automatically, which is sorta cool.

However, if the reader extension just reuses Safari's Reader API then
the extension offers nothing more besides perhaps a different GUI in
reader mode.


https://developer.apple.com/library/...theReader.html

Apple has already announced they will be supporting the open API for
extensions in the future ... so it should get much of what FireFox and Chrome
have. Being Apple, though, they also have a focus on privacy and will allow
you to have them work on a per-site basis... and will report privacy concerns.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 18/08/2020 14.34, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 07/08/2020 20.42, Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:31 AM, Snit wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:05 AM, Snit wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/6/2020 2:36 PM, Snit wrote:
On Aug 6, 2020 at 1:45:52 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 21:38:50 +0100, Snit
wrote:


Thank, I use FireFox, and never knew about Reader View.

No problem.

I just tried it on a couple of sites, and it turned out to be
terrible for me. It took away things I wanted to see. On one site,
it took away the only things I went to the site for.

Can you share the URL? I will test with Safari. Curious as to how they
compare.


https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb...free-web-pages


But that's about FireFox. I don't know anything about what's
available with Safari.

I meant sites that it showed poorly.


Here's the worst one: https://www.marke****ch.com/watchlist

I go there to see quotes for various stocks and funds. Reader View
eliminates all the quotes.

I noticed yesterday on a BBC news item that reader view (firefox)
removed half the text of the article itself.

I don't remember for sure the exact link, but it was not in English
anyway. I can search it if its of interest.



It was this one: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-53358407

But today it is working correctly.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Snit
wrote:

1) Apple does not care enough about Intel based Windows
enough to stick to Intel. They are moving to their own
Silicon which does not virtualize x86_64 in a way to support
current virtual Intel systems.

as you've been told, that is not only wrong, but in more ways
than one.

He really doesn't understand the material in question here.
And, by doesn't understand, he only knows the words themselves;
doesn't actually know what they really mean or the differences
with them.

yep.

I merely noted I agree with Apple he

Er, no, you didn't. Apple agrees with what myself and nospam, as well
as several others have been trying to tell you for sometime now.

in addition to that, there are countless software developers who could
also explain it, along with textbooks and even online classes.

not that it matters, since nothing will change his mind from thinking
that he is correct and the rest of the world is in error.


If you think I am wrong about Apple being in the process of moving away
from Intel and to their own Silicon, or their own Silicon doing things they
specifically say it does not, then show evidence.

once again, you are moving the goalposts because you know you're wrong
and well out of your league.

you were talking specifically about virtualization of windows, not
'apple being in the process of moving away from intel', the latter of
which was never in dispute and has been widely expected for nearly a
decade.

But you won¹t. You post content-free trolling.

that would be you.

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source.

not true. apple is a very strong proponent of open source.

safari uses webkit, which apple created and is open source. google is
one of several companies that uses apple's webkit, which they forked
and called blink, and is the basis of chrome. also, numerous components
of mac os and ios are open source.

Instead Apple decided, back in 2010 with
Safari 5, to use Apache-licensed Arc90's original Readbility extension,
and not the current one available at that time. Apparently Safari's
readability code is hosted at https://github.com/amumu/safari-reader-js,
but that hasn't been updated in 5 years. Arc90's readability.com web
site doesn't exist anymore (since late 2017 according web.archive.org).

that's not apple's github account, and the reason it hasn't been
updated in 5 years is because it's no longer needed.

I don't bother tracking what Safari has since I don't use Apple stuff,
so no incentive to research into whose readability script it now uses.

yet that doesn't stop you from rambling.

Is an extension listed in Safari for Reader View mode?

it's an integral part of safari, no extension needed.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 1:24:41 PM MST, "nospam" wrote:
....
If you think I am wrong about Apple being in the process of moving away
from Intel and to their own Silicon, or their own Silicon doing things they
specifically say it does not, then show evidence.

And you showed no evidence and tried to pretend I said something else, but
you, of course, do not even suggest what you think I said.

I noted, correctly, that if Apple cared deeply about Intel virtualization
(specifically in terms of x86 Windows) -- in context more than they care about
other things this transition is offering them -- that they would not move away
from Intel (or would provide better virtualization, I suppose).

But you felt the need to have content-free trolling as your response. You do
that a lot.

Really, there is nothing controversial about what I am saying... why do you
argue just to argue? What do you get out of it? Why not move away from that
and talk about tech? At least when Gremlin went off topic in his reply he
focused on the tech, and I appreciate that.

once again, you are moving the goalposts because you know you're wrong
and well out of your league.

you were talking specifically about virtualization of windows, not
'apple being in the process of moving away from intel', the latter of
which was never in dispute and has been widely expected for nearly a
decade.

But you won¹t. You post content-free trolling.

that would be you.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 1:24:42 PM MST, "nospam" wrote:

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:

Apple's Safari does not offer its Reader View on that page... it at least
knows it cannot do it correctly.

I hunted around. Safari doesn't use the open-source readability.js
script that Firefox uses. Not a big surprise since Apple prefers
proprietary over open source.

not true. apple is a very strong proponent of open source.

safari uses webkit, which apple created and is open source.

They created it based on an existing projects (KHTML and KJS for the most
part).

google is
one of several companies that uses apple's webkit, which they forked
and called blink, and is the basis of chrome.

It is interesting how you note (correctly) that Blink is a fork of Webkit but
do not note what Webkit is a fork of.

also, numerous components
of mac os and ios are open source.

....


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:24:41 +0100, nospam wrote:

In article , Snit
wrote:

1) Apple does not care enough about Intel based Windows
enough to stick to Intel. They are moving to their own
Silicon which does not virtualize x86_64 in a way to support
current virtual Intel systems.

as you've been told, that is not only wrong, but in more ways
than one.

He really doesn't understand the material in question here.
And, by doesn't understand, he only knows the words themselves;
doesn't actually know what they really mean or the differences
with them.

yep.

I merely noted I agree with Apple he

Er, no, you didn't. Apple agrees with what myself and nospam, as well
as several others have been trying to tell you for sometime now.

in addition to that, there are countless software developers who could
also explain it, along with textbooks and even online classes.

not that it matters, since nothing will change his mind from thinking
that he is correct and the rest of the world is in error.


If you think I am wrong about Apple being in the process of moving away
from Intel and to their own Silicon, or their own Silicon doing things they
specifically say it does not, then show evidence.

once again, you are moving the goalposts because you know you're wrong
and well out of your league.

you were talking specifically about virtualization of windows, not
'apple being in the process of moving away from intel', the latter of
which was never in dispute and has been widely expected for nearly a
decade.

But you won¹t. You post content-free trolling.

that would be you.

I'm not going to bother reading anything written by someone who hasn't passed his primary school exams. Sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a fullstop, it's not rocket science.

On Aug 18, 2020 at 1:47:35 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:24:41 +0100, nospam wrote:

In article , Snit
wrote:

1) Apple does not care enough about Intel based Windows
enough to stick to Intel. They are moving to their own
Silicon which does not virtualize x86_64 in a way to support
current virtual Intel systems.

as you've been told, that is not only wrong, but in more ways
than one.

He really doesn't understand the material in question here.
And, by doesn't understand, he only knows the words themselves;
doesn't actually know what they really mean or the differences
with them.

yep.

I merely noted I agree with Apple he

Er, no, you didn't. Apple agrees with what myself and nospam, as well
as several others have been trying to tell you for sometime now.

in addition to that, there are countless software developers who could
also explain it, along with textbooks and even online classes.

not that it matters, since nothing will change his mind from thinking
that he is correct and the rest of the world is in error.


If you think I am wrong about Apple being in the process of moving away
from Intel and to their own Silicon, or their own Silicon doing things they
specifically say it does not, then show evidence.

once again, you are moving the goalposts because you know you're wrong
and well out of your league.

you were talking specifically about virtualization of windows, not
'apple being in the process of moving away from intel', the latter of
which was never in dispute and has been widely expected for nearly a
decade.

But you won=B9t. You post content-free trolling.

that would be you.

I'm not going to bother reading anything written by someone who hasn't passed
his primary school exams. Sentences begin with a capital letter and end with
a fullstop, it's not rocket science.

But surely he has an off topic insult that is very important!

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.