> We have lots of RCTs on mask wearing (mostly in healthcare professionals) and they struggle to find a benefit.
This is false. If you look around and read actual studies, not demand other people to do it for you and not cherry pick garbage studies, you'll find even real life "experiments" of healthcare workers in the US during COVID-19 not wearing masks with rapidly rising number of COVID-19 cases then mandated to wear masks with subsequent rapid drop of cases.
What you won't find though is studies supporting the assertion that sick person wearing a mask protects others, not the wearer. Those are the studies that show little to no benefit and always did actually. You protect others with a mask by not catching the virus yourself, it's a second order effect.
I've read the actual studies. They don't show benefits.
> not demand other people to do it for you and not cherry pick garbage studies,
The reason I ask you to provide the studies you think are persuasive is so we avoid the tedious discussion about cherry picking. I cannot cherry pick articles that you supply.
Lancet is a reputable high impact publication. The paper is peer reviewed.
> Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty).
For masking they find only "low certainty" evidence, and that's with N95s or 12 to 16 layers of cotton. (Most people are wearing 3 to 4 layers).
Low certainty comes from GRADE and means "The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect" -- masks may be markedly more, or markedly less, effective than they found.
> What you won't find though is studies supporting the assertion that sick person wearing a mask protects others, not the wearer. Those are the studies that show little to no benefit and always did actually. You protect others with a mask by not catching the virus yourself, it's a second order effect.
Oh-ho, so here we see a clearly shifted goalpost. Everyone else in this thread is saying that the science is obvious and that you wear a mask to prevent your infection from spreading to other people. So, does the science support "source control" or not?
It seems outrageously wrong to me to summarize that Lancet article by saying "We have lots of RCTs on mask wearing (mostly in healthcare professionals) and they struggle to find a benefit." or "I've read the actual studies. They don't show benefits".
The Lancet article looks at dozens of studies of the relationship between mask-wearing and infection with coronaviruses. (Some SARS, some MERS, some COVID-19.) Those studies fall, without exception, into the three following categories.
1. A few saw no cases of infection with or without masks, and therefore tell us nothing about whether masks help and how much.
2. One saw no cases of infection with masks and just two without masks (in a fairly small sample). It somehow manages to report a relative risk of 1.03 for wearing masks (!), which I can only assume is the result of some statistical adjustment that doesn't quite make sense in this case. (The real conclusion from this one is: "This study doesn't provide enough data to draw any conclusions.")
3. In every single one of the others, wearing a mask was associated with lower probability of infection. Some of the studies weren't powerful enough for the difference to be (on its own) statistically significant, but all of them pointed in the same direction and the underpowered ones had relative risk point-estimates similar to those of the not-underpowered ones.
Sure, they report this as "low certainty" because, e.g., none of these studies was a proper randomized controlled trial. Sure, we would do well to get more data. But I see no possible way to characterize what it says in the ways you have.
They don't "struggle to find a benefit". They readily find a very considerable benefit. They don't "not show benefits". They absolutely do show benefits. There are issues: we don't have e.g. nice big RCTs where someone has somehow contrived to have two otherwise identical large populations of the general public make different mask-wearing choices, and that means that there is inevitably some uncertainty in applying the results to the question of what benefit there is from getting the public to wear masks. But it 's pure grade-A bullshit to say that the studies "don't show benefits".
> It is a common human tendency and the US is merely a vanguard of what will eventually be a global reality.
No, it's not. The US is the one pushing other countries to implement US-like copyright laws, as it has a huge music and television entertainment industry and exports entertainment and propaganda to other countries. For most countries if they implement everything the US wants it will only hurt them economically, as they would have to pay more for disproportionally imported entertainment, and politically, as with that much control more propaganda will come from the US and generally forcing people to pay more for something is unpopular. Probably the only countries where local entertainment industries can potentially increase profits from such copyright laws are the countries that have huge music and tv entertainment industries to begin with, i.e. huge countries with large middle class. But those are few.
They are pushing... and succeeding; most of the DMCA issues are actually due to trade agreements and treaties and all signing counties (which are most of them) have to have similar laws.
As someone who uses youtube-dl for all the videos online, it's presence in any repos isn't as important as it may seem, because it breaks from time to time for some websites and you need to update it in order to keep using it, which is only easy if you keep it in your home directory so you can just run youtube-dl -U once it breaks.
I completely disagree. I have been using for example NewPipe from FDroid which is autobuild regularly as native Android program.
I would no longer expect FDroid now to keep doing this if they risk a DCMA letter that takes out their entire repo.
And I would assume a shitton of users use yt-dl code through another GUI application, rather than directly through an EasyInstall/virtualenv/whatever. And will most py repos still dare to host/link this code if the risk is a DMCA letter to their ISP?
NewPipe doesn't use youtube-dl, they have their own implementation of the stream extraction code[1]. Unless that codebase also has test cases which specifically try to download RIAA content, they would need to find a different justification for a DMCA takedown.
I realize that since NewPipe's Java; but it's just an example.
I really doubt the "it's just the test cases" justification btw, since test cases would likely be fair use. The deencryption stuff is the problem, and NewPipe does it too.
Cam down. This will just end up like DeCSS, when it was packaged separately and left to the user to trigger the necessary download.
Distribution/integration is the easy part. The hard part is to anonymise and secure core developers, and to allow contributions to continue flowing in a safe manner.
But user loss implies contributor loss, and that is the problem. It's not about me being able to find it (I definitely will be able to :) ), or guaranteeing a "safe harbor" to developers (there are plenty of organizations that are dying to host something like this). It's about a project hat requires a shit ton of constant manpower not having it because of it being "tainted".
It’s not C++ and complex encryption, this is a python web scraper - hardly rocket science. I don’t think manpower will be significantly harder to come by than it was in the past — the opposite, in fact.
It did not say it requires experienced manpower, I said it requires a lot of it, and importantly, constantly. It's easy to find a bunch of "fanatics" that will rise to the ocasion to "defend their freedoms" right now. But that is not what these projects require. On the other hand, it's hard to have volunteers who will keep doing the _menial_ changes for years as the different websites change their HTML/layout. Anything less and the tool loses a huge chunk of its usefulness.
Yes, but this was the same before. If anything, the current visibility is a shot in the arm. I don't think that, once the dust settles, youtube-dl will end up with less regular contributors than it had before - likely the opposite, in fact.
Luckily they don't need to consider what some rich capitalist CEO thinks and don't need to return to MicrosoftHub and hopefully they won't. Especially given there are plenty of easy options available: self host gitlab outside of US, use something non-US, like gitea, etc.
But in case they do something that stupid, there will be forks. I will probably even make one fork myself with removed code reinstated.
EDIT: what the downvotes are for? Do you really want youtube-dl to appease Microsoft, RIAA or something?
Too bad, because there was no false information. Plenty of countries don't have not just anti-circumvention laws for copyright, but also DMCA-like laws and may even require you to obtain a court order before you can get something taken down. Except for a couple of countries, most countries could make it significantly harder to take down youtube-dl under such obviously false pretenses. Some countries are even particularly hostile and ignorant towards copyright-related demands from other countries.
Could you please stop with this ideological political activism? There is no inherent sexism in any language, ancient historical origin of the words isn't carried over to modern meaning, semantics of the words and doesn't create any bias against women or men. Meaning is created by mass media, people, world around you through propagandistic rhetorics. If you hang out with someone expressing "sexist" attitude or exposed to them through media, it really doesn't matter what words they use to call things they want to be for men or for women, you will still develop "sexist" associations, for example, you still won't consider babysitting a manly task, no matter how politically correct gender-neutral it is called.
> So whether you can legally use WWW browsers is not the point at issue. It is whether youtube-dl is a tool that enables access to YouTube contents by circumventing a "cipher".
But by that logic if youtube-dl circumvents a "cipher", so does Chrome and all the WWW browsers. There is no legal difference between them, YouTube provides code to circumvent a "cipher" for such software itself.
> That’s not so clear, but YouTube does obfuscate its code to make the task of tools like youtube-dl harder.
Not for tools like youtube-dl, but for tools that let user manually extract links, such as viewing the source code of the document. Because YouTube also provides an algorithm to deobfuscate it, which humans can't run in their heads, but tools, browsers can.
But in that wording they do allow downloading. Features of the Youtube service accessed thought the Chrome browser don't have to be exactly the same as accessed though other browsers and tools, other tools are not prohibited to provide features they can extract and interpret from the received source code and data, they are not obligated to run the code at all or as is.
> you circumvented the technical copy protection mechanism (no matter how ridiculously trivial it was)
They can't do ridiculously trivial copy protection legally, depending on the country they might be required to do at least authentication and authorization with disabled access to the sources and maybe even hardware DRM garbage, which neither Google nor publishers want to do because it will significantly reduce ad views. Basically there is no copy protection mechanism at all in this case.
> The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use
It's an alternative web browser for videos, of course it was intended for copyrighted works, just like Chrome is. I don't understand your argument, is creating alternative web browsers illegal in the US somehow?
This is false. If you look around and read actual studies, not demand other people to do it for you and not cherry pick garbage studies, you'll find even real life "experiments" of healthcare workers in the US during COVID-19 not wearing masks with rapidly rising number of COVID-19 cases then mandated to wear masks with subsequent rapid drop of cases.
What you won't find though is studies supporting the assertion that sick person wearing a mask protects others, not the wearer. Those are the studies that show little to no benefit and always did actually. You protect others with a mask by not catching the virus yourself, it's a second order effect.