I thought LLM-authored books were rampant in Amazon, though?

Well, you should enable Adam7 interlacing for nicer progressive decoding!

I suppose it's not very useful nowadays as most any image will load fast, though.

What actually might could make sense in the future would be super-dense but abstraction-able programming language made for models. Then you'd train the model to work with it and you could have a way to render a human-readable version of the program for introspection.

It preferably come with superior guard rails, so strict static typing, borrow checker if not gc, perhaps ability to state proofs, etc.

Probably a long time, as machine code is verbose and thus destroys the context both when reading and writing, as well as making it more expensive.

It's externally mandated difficulties vs internally created ones. I think the latter should always be easier, because you can change the requirements.

So apparently zamadatix's point wasn't well taken, but I think it could be an effective approach to store the same data twice over to increase the likelihood of successful recovery. Could be even be even ten times, or e.g. 6+4 with redundant recovery coding.

Although you do have a point that the compressed data might be more difficult to decipher, if it doesn't have sufficient redundancy to skip bad parts, or if it is essential that the data is aligned in a certain way (e.g. disk images, and probably many other formats) and the format doesn't take this into account. Shorter window sizes, window reset markers, and explicit offset information could mitigate those problems.

Error correction codes would be a much better use than simply duplicating the data.

I have an automation that turns on amplifier only when using certain inputs, not just when the TV is turned on. I can easily imagine people would also configure their amps to use different input depending on TV input.

Actually what I wanted from the video was impact of user consent, but it doesn't seme to cover this: what happens if you accept nothing, or the minimal set of consent (so not including audio) of licenses to allow you to run third-party apps? I recall there are four checkboxes to check.

My guess is: not much.

Even if it did support it, nobody connects their TV to their local network via HDMI, they connect it to their PC. And, as far as I'm aware, no PCs automatically start sharing networking with whichever networks they are connected to.

That could of course change. Could be even a nice feature for connecting your TV to the network via your multi media center, if the bandwidth is good.

LG was caught abusing (although it's hard to argue that it isn't intended behaviour) Windows automatic installation of hardware-related software to install adware. Doesn't take too many tinfoil wraps around one's head to imagine them doing the same to enable network sharing (assuming hardware support is ubiqtuous enough).

https://www.techspot.com/news/113031-lg-alienware-monitors-c...

Wouldn't this in practice be a lot like Passkeys? But it might be more difficult to integrate this kind of approach to the stacks we use, whereas Passkeys fits in relatively easily.

I suppose client cert would protect against from a MitM attack, if the client failed to notice it, or if the MitMer has the website keys to make a perfect attack.