Then they switch over to radicaly different software interface (hi Gimp!) for a single day... of course they're way less efficient.
While I agree with that, I have some doubts that their view would have changed a lot if the test would have been done for weeks, month or years. I have used Free Software pretty much exclusively for the last 10+ years and a lot of stuff still just feels broken and/or incomplete, compared to the proprietary stuff I used back then. The reason is simple, professional proprietary software is developed to solve a problems people have, if it is not good enough, it might get overrun by a competing product. Free Software on the other side might start with solving somebodies problem, but after that it often just ends up being stuck in maintenance hell. Nobody goes out to actually analyses what people are using the software for and how it could be improved for that usecase. Either it kind of sort of already fits or people will be stuck with a half finished solution for a long while to come.
See Gimp, that multi-window interface has been an annoyance for what? A decade? Yet we still don't have that fixed. We might get that fixed in the next big release, maybe, but thats 10 years to long. Same with higher color depths, it has been a request feature for ages, even got a fork (FilmGimp/Cinepaint), yet mainline Gimp still can't do it. In the commercial world you might have quite a bit of an issue if you let users wait for ages, yet in the Free Software world that is pretty much standard. The only exceptions to this seems to be the commercial endeavorers like Ubuntu where they actually optimize the software for the user and not just randomly patch along.
Of course, thanks to it being Free Software I can go and patch it myself, but often times that is just not practical.
Yes, but I blame the comment system for that. A comment system that doesn't allow links, doesn't allow more then a handful of characters, is a complete usability nightmare when you want to browse more then the last ten comments, doesn't allow search and doesn't support threads or replies properly is just useless when you actually want to write something insightful. A comment system should encourage informative posts, not make them impossible like the Youtube system does.
The latest changes that the highest rated comments and comments from the video upload appear on top have helped a bit to cleanup the mess, but its still far away from being a comment system where people actually can have a meaningful discussion.
Why the hell is there nothing like this in a modern OS?
You can use SDL and get at least reasonably close to what it was in DOS with a bit more comfort and flexibility.
Anyway, the reason you don't get pixel putting in your average OS API is simply that hardware doesn't support it properly. Directly accessing graphics memory is slow and thus instead of accessing the pixels directly, you tell your graphics card to draw a polygon or if thats to high level, you prepare a piece of system memory by pixel-putting and then upload it the the gfx card in one go. Moved memory in huge chunks around is just a lot faster then in small ones.
On top of that abstraction also provides flexibility, you can send your graphics over the network, use different resolutions and color depths, multiple monitors, access a lot of input devices with a common interface and stuff like that. If you would directly poke around in memory, you couldn't do any of that.
That of course doesn't mean that all APIs are great, most are a mess and more complicated then they have to be, but they still provide a lot of things that we just take for granted, that would actually be quite complicated if you would want to do them all yourself.
That doesn't really have anything to do with digital downloads. You can buy physical games used or when they are old just fine and quite often you will pay much less then on Steam, as Steam prices are kept artificially high. Current price for GTAIV on Steam is 22,49€, I can buy it new in a box, including shipping, for 16€.
The only good part of Steam are their time limited weekend deals, as they are extremely cheap, but normal prices are almost always higher then the boxed version, even when the game is new. When you take used sales into account Steam is even more overpriced.
It is not really a new design, more a modification of an existing one. Most devices already look like that, just instead of the outer contact being metal, its plastic for isolation, thus nothing bad happens on bad insertion. All Microsoft did was changed it to metal and wire it so you can make contact both ways.
It is also a little late in the game. AA batteries are a few decades old and by now everybody should have figured out how to use them. So it is doubtful if there will be any practical benefit. Another thing is that I am wondering how solid the contact to the battery would be, most battery holder have a spring at the other end, this design doesn't look like they could have much force to keep the battery fixated.
I don't get this? You prefer to find bugs or areas of the game you can get into but not get out of?
Areas you can't get out of are annoying. Little things that the developer never intended however rank among the best experience in gaming I ever had, because that are the fleeting moments where the game stops being a game and becomes its own little virtual world.
Some games are deliberately designed to work like that, like Mario64 where your goal is simply to reach the star, but the game is rather vague in how you do that, so you can do it however you want. But in others its more accidental, in Mario64DS for example you get new characters with different abilities then in the original and with those abilities you can basically sequence-break your way through many levels. Its not quite as originally intended, but its a ton of fun.
Another example would be Drakan for the PS2, the AI is quite broken as it can't pathfinding its way around obstacles, but that didn't break the game, it made the fights more interesting. As it shifting the game from just "swinging your sword" to "out smart the AI".
Operation Flashpoint is also full of moments where you end up doing whatever works instead of doing what was intended. When your job is to sneak into an enemy base and blow up some tanks, you can often get away with just stealing a tank and shooting the base into piece with that. Or in some missions you can try to shoot helicopters from the sky with an LAW, its not what the weapons was designed for and most of the time you will simply miss, but if you hit, it is simply great.
There are of course also mechanics like rocketjump and strafejumping that weren't designed on purpose but simply resulted from broken physics, yet they enhanced the game as a whole.
Games often just contain to much hand holding and it simply feels good when you find a solution that works but doesn't follow the predefined path.
You can't heal or revive him for the same reason you can't simply use Phoenix Down on Aeris, or why using nuke-level summoning magic in the middle of a city doesn't leave it a smoking ruin: you are acting out a pre-scripted story.
The problem isn't the scripting itself, Another World for example is completly scripted from start to finish, yet it never runs into those issues. The reason is simply: Another World doesn't have nukes or phoenix down. If you have items that by definition are so powerful that it becomes impossible to integrate them properly, they will end up feeling fake. In Another World on the other side you never encounter those. Your only weapon is a gun that you steal from a guard and it is the same gun that everybody else has. It works by simple consistent rules and when there is an object that looks like you can shoot it, you can shoot it. When you have a low object count it is possible to code those interactions. Many of todays games on the other side like to through tons of items at the player without ever fully integrating them into the world. Thus you get rocket launchers that can't even penetrate a wooden door. Thus I would prefer low objects counts with high interactivity instead of high object counts with low interactivity.
It's unfortunate that the real-world mechanics of death are no fun to play,
And yet I had the most memorable experiences ever with games like Another World or Operation Flashpoint where you die rather realistically (AW: one shot kills, touching anything dangerous kills also instantly, OF: one shoot may kill you, two almost certainly do and if you have bad luck you survive and can only crawl).
The problem with health isn't health itself, but really the enemies you are fighting. With most games you are a sole hero fighting whole armies of enemies and while both of you are "human" you fight by completly different rules. Enemies die after a head shot, yet players can take plenty and still walk away just fine (thanks to huge health supply). It is that point where the immersion falls apart, as it becomes obvious that the game doesn't even follow its own rules. If you fight enemies that should have the same strength as you story wise, they should have that strength also in gameplay, yet in lost of games they just don't.
Valve is really serious about play testing their games to death, which sadly however also removes what makes games interesting, as instead of giving you something interesting to discover, the games are so smooth and through fully tested that you have close to zero chance to discover anything the developer didn't intend.
Valve games for me are like amusement park rides, sure they are fun and all, but at the end of the day you are riding on rails, seeing a well crafted show, not an actual interactive world.
That is a problem with opennet mode, but I believe darknet mode [freenetproject.org] addresses that concern.
In theory, yes, in practice Darknet is completly unusable and simply can never work, as you never get a large enough number of trusted(!) people that also run Freenet.
The problem is, they aren't providing raw information,
Except of course thats a lie, the uncut video was released along with the commented one. Not raw enough for you? Complain to the US military, Wikileaks can't release stuff they don't have.
It is not that difficult to answer for the OLPC. The resolution of the OLPC display is 1200x900. However the difference is that unlike a normal LCD it doesn't have a RGB triplet for each pixels, but only one of R, G or B per pixel. So to display a color you need multiple pixels, instead of one. However this doesn't mean that the resolution will be lower in color mode, it will simply look more blurry, the framebuffer stays 1200x900 the whole time.
What the OLPC does is pretty similar to what you see with subpixel rendering with fonts, it just does it the other way around. So instead of gaining resolution in displaying black&white, it loses resolution when doing color rendering. But it is just blurriness, its not like you switch from 1200x900 to a crystal clear 600x450 or something like that.
Ironically enough, the successor Giana Sisters DS is an official NintendoDS game. Not to be confused with Giana Sisters DS, which is a home brew port of the original (using a build-in C64 emulator and a few extra game specific hacks).
These days most companies don't really seem to care about other companies cloning their gameplay, as thats basically was everybody is doing anyway.
Content protection doesn't have to be perfect to make media companies happy, it just has to be "good enough" and Flash seems to accomplish that quite fine. It won't stop everybody, but it will certainly stop Average Joe, recording streaming Flash content isn't that easy.
Fullscreen Video: If the browser doesn't implement this, a plugin could.
If you need a plug-in for core functionality the spec sucks.
What makes recording from streaming webcams impossible without Flash?
The lack of any support for that in HTML5? With Flash you can stream content right from your browser, with HTML5 you can't.
A user-initiated request to the browser or player is what should initiate full-screen video (or any other "zooming" of content), not javascript.
And how do you implement a custom player interface with that? You can complain about non-standard player interfaces all day long, but at the end of the day there is a ton of really interesting stuff that you just can't do with a standard interface, as a standard interface by its very nature is targeted as the lowest common denominator, not at the interesting innovative applications that people might come up with. See the ability to edit, comment, annotate, link and subtitle videos in the browser on Youtube, you are not getting those kind of feature with a raw video tag, you need a hell of a lot Javascript to keep that together and to make it work Javascript needs proper access to the videos player abilities. And so far HTML5 video just doesn't cut it.
You can read "one of whom" as "at least one of whom" or as "exactly one of whom", "one of whom" alone doesn't really tell you much about the other kid, as it only refers to the first.
Doesn't this issue involve the eyes not focusing properly o a point in space?
The issue is that you are looking at an 3D object say 1 meter in front of you, while you are focusing on a screen that might be 3 meter away from you. Thus your depth perception gets a little confused and possibly permanently damaged when you do that stuff to much while your brain is still developing. This issue is exactly the same when you use an auto stereoscopic display instead of shuttle glasses or polarized lenses. The offset between both images is exactly the same as on any other type of 3D screen, as thats where the 3D comes from.
The issue should apply to pretty much all normal 3D tech, as all they do is simply get different images to each eye. It doesn't really matter how exactly they do that, as the core problem is that your eyes have to focus on the 2D screen, while you are looking at objects in front or behind the screen. Thus where your focus is and where it should be are different places.
Not sure about holograms, they work a little different, so they might be fine. But as we don't have interactive holographic displays thats a moot point.
Who wants to swap a brand new batty for a five year old dud one?
The point of battery swap is that you always get a working battery, if something gets to old to be useful, it will get into recycling and be dealt with.
And anyway, whats the point of having a brand new battery when it is empty? For most part you want a full battery, age is really rather meaningless if you don't own the battery. If the worst case happens, you just make another battery swap.
How would leasing the battery change the cost of replacement 10 years later?
If you want to make resale easier, spreading the cost is pretty much all you need. Its quite a different thing to sell a used car and require a $30 month contract or multiple thousand dollar for a new battery.
And for other advantages that leasing brings, see betterplace.com.
So is gasoline, thats why you don't lift it with your manly arms, but with a pump. If only somebody would come up with a solution for swapping batteries, oh wait .
The point of leasing isn't just distributing the cost, but it is also about remove the personal ownership of the battery. If you don't own your battery, but just have a contract for the electricity, it is possible to build a refill station that will just swap out the empty battery against a full one, allowing you to refill your EV in a minute, instead of recharge it for multiple hours. If you would own the battery, you simply couldn't do that that easily. It of course also removes pretty much any need to worry about wear and lifetime of the battery, since you always have a fresh one and not drive around with the same for ten years. It also allows to use the car batteries as backup storage for the powergrid, again something that would be a bit more tricky to implement if you would own your personal battery.
The whole EV car thing is basically a solved problem on paper, all its need is putting the plans into actions, which of course is tricky, the car industry had quite a few decades of head start, so it will take time till you have enough refill stations in the wild and the manufacturers have standardized on their battery tech at least enough that you don't need a special battery for every car.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they switch over to radicaly different software interface (hi Gimp!) for a single day... of course they're way less efficient.
While I agree with that, I have some doubts that their view would have changed a lot if the test would have been done for weeks, month or years. I have used Free Software pretty much exclusively for the last 10+ years and a lot of stuff still just feels broken and/or incomplete, compared to the proprietary stuff I used back then. The reason is simple, professional proprietary software is developed to solve a problems people have, if it is not good enough, it might get overrun by a competing product. Free Software on the other side might start with solving somebodies problem, but after that it often just ends up being stuck in maintenance hell. Nobody goes out to actually analyses what people are using the software for and how it could be improved for that usecase. Either it kind of sort of already fits or people will be stuck with a half finished solution for a long while to come.
See Gimp, that multi-window interface has been an annoyance for what? A decade? Yet we still don't have that fixed. We might get that fixed in the next big release, maybe, but thats 10 years to long. Same with higher color depths, it has been a request feature for ages, even got a fork (FilmGimp/Cinepaint), yet mainline Gimp still can't do it. In the commercial world you might have quite a bit of an issue if you let users wait for ages, yet in the Free Software world that is pretty much standard. The only exceptions to this seems to be the commercial endeavorers like Ubuntu where they actually optimize the software for the user and not just randomly patch along.
Of course, thanks to it being Free Software I can go and patch it myself, but often times that is just not practical.
A lot of the comments are just troll BS.
Yes, but I blame the comment system for that. A comment system that doesn't allow links, doesn't allow more then a handful of characters, is a complete usability nightmare when you want to browse more then the last ten comments, doesn't allow search and doesn't support threads or replies properly is just useless when you actually want to write something insightful. A comment system should encourage informative posts, not make them impossible like the Youtube system does.
The latest changes that the highest rated comments and comments from the video upload appear on top have helped a bit to cleanup the mess, but its still far away from being a comment system where people actually can have a meaningful discussion.
Why the hell is there nothing like this in a modern OS?
You can use SDL and get at least reasonably close to what it was in DOS with a bit more comfort and flexibility.
Anyway, the reason you don't get pixel putting in your average OS API is simply that hardware doesn't support it properly. Directly accessing graphics memory is slow and thus instead of accessing the pixels directly, you tell your graphics card to draw a polygon or if thats to high level, you prepare a piece of system memory by pixel-putting and then upload it the the gfx card in one go. Moved memory in huge chunks around is just a lot faster then in small ones.
On top of that abstraction also provides flexibility, you can send your graphics over the network, use different resolutions and color depths, multiple monitors, access a lot of input devices with a common interface and stuff like that. If you would directly poke around in memory, you couldn't do any of that.
That of course doesn't mean that all APIs are great, most are a mess and more complicated then they have to be, but they still provide a lot of things that we just take for granted, that would actually be quite complicated if you would want to do them all yourself.
That doesn't really have anything to do with digital downloads. You can buy physical games used or when they are old just fine and quite often you will pay much less then on Steam, as Steam prices are kept artificially high. Current price for GTAIV on Steam is 22,49€, I can buy it new in a box, including shipping, for 16€.
The only good part of Steam are their time limited weekend deals, as they are extremely cheap, but normal prices are almost always higher then the boxed version, even when the game is new. When you take used sales into account Steam is even more overpriced.
It is not really a new design, more a modification of an existing one. Most devices already look like that, just instead of the outer contact being metal, its plastic for isolation, thus nothing bad happens on bad insertion. All Microsoft did was changed it to metal and wire it so you can make contact both ways.
It is also a little late in the game. AA batteries are a few decades old and by now everybody should have figured out how to use them. So it is doubtful if there will be any practical benefit. Another thing is that I am wondering how solid the contact to the battery would be, most battery holder have a spring at the other end, this design doesn't look like they could have much force to keep the battery fixated.
I don't get this? You prefer to find bugs or areas of the game you can get into but not get out of?
Areas you can't get out of are annoying. Little things that the developer never intended however rank among the best experience in gaming I ever had, because that are the fleeting moments where the game stops being a game and becomes its own little virtual world.
Some games are deliberately designed to work like that, like Mario64 where your goal is simply to reach the star, but the game is rather vague in how you do that, so you can do it however you want. But in others its more accidental, in Mario64DS for example you get new characters with different abilities then in the original and with those abilities you can basically sequence-break your way through many levels. Its not quite as originally intended, but its a ton of fun.
Another example would be Drakan for the PS2, the AI is quite broken as it can't pathfinding its way around obstacles, but that didn't break the game, it made the fights more interesting. As it shifting the game from just "swinging your sword" to "out smart the AI".
Operation Flashpoint is also full of moments where you end up doing whatever works instead of doing what was intended. When your job is to sneak into an enemy base and blow up some tanks, you can often get away with just stealing a tank and shooting the base into piece with that. Or in some missions you can try to shoot helicopters from the sky with an LAW, its not what the weapons was designed for and most of the time you will simply miss, but if you hit, it is simply great.
There are of course also mechanics like rocketjump and strafejumping that weren't designed on purpose but simply resulted from broken physics, yet they enhanced the game as a whole.
Games often just contain to much hand holding and it simply feels good when you find a solution that works but doesn't follow the predefined path.
You can't heal or revive him for the same reason you can't simply use Phoenix Down on Aeris, or why using nuke-level summoning magic in the middle of a city doesn't leave it a smoking ruin: you are acting out a pre-scripted story.
The problem isn't the scripting itself, Another World for example is completly scripted from start to finish, yet it never runs into those issues. The reason is simply: Another World doesn't have nukes or phoenix down. If you have items that by definition are so powerful that it becomes impossible to integrate them properly, they will end up feeling fake. In Another World on the other side you never encounter those. Your only weapon is a gun that you steal from a guard and it is the same gun that everybody else has. It works by simple consistent rules and when there is an object that looks like you can shoot it, you can shoot it. When you have a low object count it is possible to code those interactions. Many of todays games on the other side like to through tons of items at the player without ever fully integrating them into the world. Thus you get rocket launchers that can't even penetrate a wooden door. Thus I would prefer low objects counts with high interactivity instead of high object counts with low interactivity.
It's unfortunate that the real-world mechanics of death are no fun to play,
And yet I had the most memorable experiences ever with games like Another World or Operation Flashpoint where you die rather realistically (AW: one shot kills, touching anything dangerous kills also instantly, OF: one shoot may kill you, two almost certainly do and if you have bad luck you survive and can only crawl).
The problem with health isn't health itself, but really the enemies you are fighting. With most games you are a sole hero fighting whole armies of enemies and while both of you are "human" you fight by completly different rules. Enemies die after a head shot, yet players can take plenty and still walk away just fine (thanks to huge health supply). It is that point where the immersion falls apart, as it becomes obvious that the game doesn't even follow its own rules. If you fight enemies that should have the same strength as you story wise, they should have that strength also in gameplay, yet in lost of games they just don't.
Valve is really serious about play testing their games to death, which sadly however also removes what makes games interesting, as instead of giving you something interesting to discover, the games are so smooth and through fully tested that you have close to zero chance to discover anything the developer didn't intend.
Valve games for me are like amusement park rides, sure they are fun and all, but at the end of the day you are riding on rails, seeing a well crafted show, not an actual interactive world.
That is a problem with opennet mode, but I believe darknet mode [freenetproject.org] addresses that concern.
In theory, yes, in practice Darknet is completly unusable and simply can never work, as you never get a large enough number of trusted(!) people that also run Freenet.
The problem is, they aren't providing raw information,
Except of course thats a lie, the uncut video was released along with the commented one. Not raw enough for you? Complain to the US military, Wikileaks can't release stuff they don't have.
They used video of an attack on weapons-carrying insurgents
And your proof that those where insurgents is exactly what?
It is not that difficult to answer for the OLPC. The resolution of the OLPC display is 1200x900. However the difference is that unlike a normal LCD it doesn't have a RGB triplet for each pixels, but only one of R, G or B per pixel. So to display a color you need multiple pixels, instead of one. However this doesn't mean that the resolution will be lower in color mode, it will simply look more blurry, the framebuffer stays 1200x900 the whole time.
What the OLPC does is pretty similar to what you see with subpixel rendering with fonts, it just does it the other way around. So instead of gaining resolution in displaying black&white, it loses resolution when doing color rendering. But it is just blurriness, its not like you switch from 1200x900 to a crystal clear 600x450 or something like that.
Ironically enough, the successor Giana Sisters DS is an official NintendoDS game. Not to be confused with Giana Sisters DS, which is a home brew port of the original (using a build-in C64 emulator and a few extra game specific hacks).
These days most companies don't really seem to care about other companies cloning their gameplay, as thats basically was everybody is doing anyway.
Content Protection: "Content Protection" cannot offer Content Protection either.
Content protection doesn't have to be perfect to make media companies happy, it just has to be "good enough" and Flash seems to accomplish that quite fine. It won't stop everybody, but it will certainly stop Average Joe, recording streaming Flash content isn't that easy.
Fullscreen Video: If the browser doesn't implement this, a plugin could.
If you need a plug-in for core functionality the spec sucks.
What makes recording from streaming webcams impossible without Flash?
The lack of any support for that in HTML5? With Flash you can stream content right from your browser, with HTML5 you can't.
A user-initiated request to the browser or player is what should initiate full-screen video (or any other "zooming" of content), not javascript.
And how do you implement a custom player interface with that? You can complain about non-standard player interfaces all day long, but at the end of the day there is a ton of really interesting stuff that you just can't do with a standard interface, as a standard interface by its very nature is targeted as the lowest common denominator, not at the interesting innovative applications that people might come up with. See the ability to edit, comment, annotate, link and subtitle videos in the browser on Youtube, you are not getting those kind of feature with a raw video tag, you need a hell of a lot Javascript to keep that together and to make it work Javascript needs proper access to the videos player abilities. And so far HTML5 video just doesn't cut it.
You can read "one of whom" as "at least one of whom" or as "exactly one of whom", "one of whom" alone doesn't really tell you much about the other kid, as it only refers to the first.
You'd need to design the cars, and the stations, to use standard packs,
Yes, and better place has already done that and has taxis driving around in Tokio.
It makes more sense to trickle charge from 120-240V plugs whenever possible;
Yes, but a plug doesn't help you fix the range problem, a swap station does. That's why you use both.
IIRC fast charging stations are supposed to be able to give you 30-40 miles more range in 10-15 minutes,
A swap station gives you full charge in 2 minutes.
Doesn't this issue involve the eyes not focusing properly o a point in space?
The issue is that you are looking at an 3D object say 1 meter in front of you, while you are focusing on a screen that might be 3 meter away from you. Thus your depth perception gets a little confused and possibly permanently damaged when you do that stuff to much while your brain is still developing. This issue is exactly the same when you use an auto stereoscopic display instead of shuttle glasses or polarized lenses. The offset between both images is exactly the same as on any other type of 3D screen, as thats where the 3D comes from.
The issue should apply to pretty much all normal 3D tech, as all they do is simply get different images to each eye. It doesn't really matter how exactly they do that, as the core problem is that your eyes have to focus on the 2D screen, while you are looking at objects in front or behind the screen. Thus where your focus is and where it should be are different places.
Not sure about holograms, they work a little different, so they might be fine. But as we don't have interactive holographic displays thats a moot point.
Who wants to swap a brand new batty for a five year old dud one?
The point of battery swap is that you always get a working battery, if something gets to old to be useful, it will get into recycling and be dealt with.
And anyway, whats the point of having a brand new battery when it is empty? For most part you want a full battery, age is really rather meaningless if you don't own the battery. If the worst case happens, you just make another battery swap.
How would leasing the battery change the cost of replacement 10 years later?
If you want to make resale easier, spreading the cost is pretty much all you need. Its quite a different thing to sell a used car and require a $30 month contract or multiple thousand dollar for a new battery.
And for other advantages that leasing brings, see betterplace.com.
So is gasoline, thats why you don't lift it with your manly arms, but with a pump. If only somebody would come up with a solution for swapping batteries, oh wait .
The point of leasing isn't just distributing the cost, but it is also about remove the personal ownership of the battery. If you don't own your battery, but just have a contract for the electricity, it is possible to build a refill station that will just swap out the empty battery against a full one, allowing you to refill your EV in a minute, instead of recharge it for multiple hours. If you would own the battery, you simply couldn't do that that easily. It of course also removes pretty much any need to worry about wear and lifetime of the battery, since you always have a fresh one and not drive around with the same for ten years. It also allows to use the car batteries as backup storage for the powergrid, again something that would be a bit more tricky to implement if you would own your personal battery.
The whole EV car thing is basically a solved problem on paper, all its need is putting the plans into actions, which of course is tricky, the car industry had quite a few decades of head start, so it will take time till you have enough refill stations in the wild and the manufacturers have standardized on their battery tech at least enough that you don't need a special battery for every car.
Any device with a spinning disc inside is liable to scratch the discs if it is moved.
Name one and show me a video and I might believe that. So far you have brought zero evidence to the table.
And your argument is based on what data?
A lawsuit, consumer org investigations and a whole bunch of Youtube videos.