I don't understand the logic of banning these books, do they act like the internet doesn't exist? Kids will find this information, I found plenty of information about being gay 20ish years ago in high school.

Then again being short sited is one of their strong suits.

(Not downplaying banned books, I just can't understand thinking it is a good idea)

I am against the banning of books from purchase or from public libraries, however banning books in schools is not that. It is gatekeeping this information from young and impressionable minds, just like we do with movies, games, drugs, all sorts of things. Things that may have negative consequences on developing minds.

You may disagree with what books are banned or why, but allowing unsupervised exposure of elementary aged children to sexually explicit and graphically depicted books such as Gender Queer is not appropriate. If a child wants access to this, their parent or adult can buy it for them or rent it from the public library.

That's great idea, many stores have them!

This is not about bookstores but about school. So then, would you put that bookshelf in a second grade class. How early do kids need to hear about "Five troubled teenagers fall into prostitution as they search for freedom, safety, community, family, and love". I mean, a lot of those kids still believe in Santa maybe telling them about teenage prostitutes is a bit early.

My local bookstore proudly features a table of "banned books" right at the entrance. It's a pretty good advertisement!

Book bans are not designed to stop people that know about these books and the ideas they contain. They know that those people will still find them and read them.

> I found plenty of information about being gay 20ish years ago in high school.

Lots of kids didn't and they don't know they didn't and that is the point.

But (well until the last couple of years) you would have still seen "different" people on tv and in movies.

And I get that the point is to make it so the kids are not being exposed to different ideas and beliefs. I am just struggling to understand how that is actually a realistic idea in todays world.

But, assuming there are not bugs and the code ships. Has there been any study in resource usage creeping up and an impact of this on a whole system. The tests I have done with trying to build things with AI it always seems like there is zero efficiency unless you notice it and can put it in the right direction.

I have been curious about the impact this will have on general computing as more low quality code makes it into applications we use every day.

Not fully sure what I will do regarding any open source repo's yet, but at least anything private I am already in the process of moving away.

This was something I already wanted to do for privacy concerns (especially possibility using private repo's to train AI) so this was just the push I needed.

That seems like it would fix the issue here without introducing a major security issue.

To be blunt... If I was security at a company and found out someone was doing this, I would question why they have the right to use git frankly.

Edit: I should have clicked through to the superuser article which answered my question that this is perfectly fine with git and having multiple in .ssh.

So honest question... why did you think this was a necessary "twist" worth the risks of copying those files to a location it should not be?

    [includeIf "gitdir:~/Work/"]
      path = .gitconfig_work
    [includeIf "gitdir:~/OpenSource/"]
      path = .gitconfig_opensource

  Host project1.git
    Hostname github.com
    IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_project1_ed25519
    IdentitiesOnly yes

run "ssh -vvv" and you will see how ssh client decides to look thru that directory. it will try all of them if none are specified.

I am just trying to figure out how we are jumping from storing in ~/.ssh to storing in the repo here.

  git config core.sshCommand "ssh -i /home/your_user/.ssh/your_custom_key"

I use this all the time as my main key is ed25519 but some old repositories only support rsa keys.

The sshCommand config is, as the name says, the literal ssh command that is used by git when operations that call a remote with ssh (usually push/pull). You can also put other ssh options in there if you need.

Another option to achieve the same effect is to setup directly in your ~/.ssh/config:

  Host your_custom_alias
    HostName git.domain.com
    User git
    IdentityFile ~/.ssh/your_custom_key

> This setup is localized to that repo and is entirely self-contained, i.e. you can move the repo to a different path or place it on a thumb drive to a different machine and it will work without reconfiguring.

But also:

> you can move the repo to a different path

Pretty sure this alone is a non issue.

> place it on a thumb drive to a different machine and it will work without reconfiguring.

I go back to this being terrible security. If you loose that drive someone now has your key and the ability to figure out where that key is valid for.

Not just the ability to figure it out, but the config is set to use it automatically, so you could easily figure this out on accident.

\s (mostly because you know this will be the "Solution" that many will just run with despite the very real issue of how "persuadable" these systems are)...

The real answer is that even that will fail and there will have to be a feedback loop with a human that will likely in many cases lead to more churn trying to fix the work the AI did vs if the human just did it in the first place.

Instead of focusing on the places that using an AI tool can truly cut down on time spent like searching for something (which can still fail but at least the risk when a failure is far lower vs producing output).

They have not released 1.107 yet, doing a quick scan I am not seeing anything on the VSCodium github.

I thought originally it may have been an OSS extension, but it actually seems to have been a proprietary project licensed under the Microsoft Software License, similar to Copilot and such.

I refuse to connect any of my TV's to the internet but I have to wonder how long until a few different things happen:

- The TV's just connect to unsecure Wifi and collect the data anyways (I think there were reports of at least one manufacture already doing this at one point?). Or just make a deal with xfinity to use their mesh network that seems to be everywhere.

- The TV's don't work without being connected to the internet.

- The manufactures find out that the cost of adding in a cellular modem is justified by the increase in data they can collect.

I would love the idea of buying a modern TV without any of this crap shoved in, I happily use my Apple TV for everything that isnt video games.

It bothers me though when it seems like to fix an issue with HDR or something I need to update the firmware. I have wondered on occasion if this is intentional to "force" people to connect. If I have to do this I will run an ethernet cable to temporarily connect.

It's kind of funny, we bought these TVs because they were "smart" (when they first came out) but they were so clunky and unreliable we disconnected them and used either PS or Apple TV for other things. Now we wouldn't connect our TVs to the internet for anything, and only use PS5s for specific things. We mostly just use our Apple TV.

I think very few people actually consider it a single condition. To the point that most people that I know, including myself, say that we are "somewhere on the spectrum" or some variant of that.

This isn't a post diagnoses understanding either, it is well understood by anyone I have talked to about this in the last 10ish years? (maybe less, I cant really pinpoint that).

While I feel like there is value for professionals to be more specific about it, from an everyday person prospective I feel like "Autism" is well enough understood to be not just a single thing. Enough so that some phrasing along the lines of "my tism is..." is somewhat commonplace.

The real problem is anti-science people joining the conversation, but splitting up Autism is not going to change that.

Edit: To be very clear here I am not trying to say that most people in general are saying "I am somewhere on the spectrum". I am saying that most people I know which a larger portion of the people I regularly talk to are also diagnosed.

Many scientists believe that one day we will likely be able to split off at least some of the undifferentiated mass of ASD into potentially completely unrelated disorders that may share a lot of aspects of presentation.

For example, we may find out that one set of genes combined with cytokine storms in utero cause dysfunction in synaptic pruning, while another set of genes combined with gut dysbiosis may affect brain plasticity in the critical period of early childhood. Those would be two completely unrelated conditions, with overlapping symptoms for some (but not all) who have them.

That's my main concern about trying to split up autism. It's all well and good for study purposes, but for "can I get my insurance to pay for my kid's occupational therapy" purposes I'm really skittish about such a breakup. All the sudden my kid might have "omegaism" or whatever and boom, it's uncommon for them to need OT so insurance won't cover it.

It really doesn't matter if the underlying cause is very different in terms of treatment because a speech therapist works the same with a kid with autism as they do with a kid with down syndrome.

If there were more pharmaceutical interventions then I might care a bit more. But there's just not.

In terms of the research, the researchers already have tools to sort and filter individuals based on their specific set of symptoms. Just because 2 people share an autism diagnosis doesn't really impact the research.

What objection do you have other than not liking that it's not a "pure" diagnosis?

People with sensory issues often also have more cognitive rigidity for example.

Autism, and many other psychological disorders, are quite literally just a lump of symptoms and presentations, because we do not have better options.

Sure, it makes navigating american health insurance easier if you can just say "Autism" and get various treatments paid for, but very similar diagnostic criteria and definitions are used in countries with fully socialized medicine.

Those people with those linked issues tend to benefit from similar treatment, and that's the entire point of a diagnostic criteria.

All the complaints come from people who seem to just not like the vibe of that?

Deal with it. Go fund more research into the heritability of neurodivergent pathologies if you want a blood test.

Some day we WILL be able to separate "Autism" into very specific diseases with specific causes, and some of those causes will have a genetic test. Unless we kill the concept of medical research because we elected morons who tear apart our institutions.

I have "Impaired vision", and I share that with people who are profoundly (but not totally) blind, and it does not matter that I can drive with glasses and they can't, and the name of that condition is not the important part.

All this handwringing about "but but but my mildly autistic son is mostly functional and I'm sad that he has the same name of condition as someone who cannot be educated past a 3rd grade level" is stupid. It does not benefit anyone struggling with autism to complain about it.

Are you aware that we have multiple medical conditions called "Palsy"s, and that they have drastically different causes and effects, such that my sister's Palsy which was caused by medical malpractice and prevented her from using her dominant hand in some cases is very different from my schoolmate's Palsy which left her wheelchair bound and requiring professional help day to day? They are both palsy because they are (partially) movement disorders stemming from nerve damage or dysfunction.

The horror!

Maybe I'm not being charitable. But that really does feel like the only real outcome of trying to piecemeal the diagnosis.

I don't believe research or treatment is negatively impacted in anyway by the diagnosis being broad. If anything, that opens doors so that research isn't accidentally too narrowly focused.

Or, consider TPA. It is an extremely dangerous drug (used correctly it still has greater than a 1% chance of killing the patient), if you administer it to "stroke" patients you almost certainly do more harm than good. The reality is that if you use it on a bleed type stroke it can (and likely will) only make things worse. Use it on a clot type stroke and you might save them. We of course know this and only use it when a CAT has confirmed it's a clot--but what would happen if we didn't distinguish the two cases?

> The vast amount of treatment for autism is therapies.

> It really doesn't matter if the underlying cause is very different in terms of treatment because a speech therapist works the same with a kid with autism as they do with a kid with down syndrome.

> If there were more pharmaceutical interventions then I might care a bit more. But there's just not.

There are a limited set of drugs involved in autism therapies, but they are general drugs that would be applied regardless the diagnosis (for example, antidepressants.)

In fact, it's much like depression in that sense in that it's a very broad definition with a number of causes. Some antidepressants even work better or worse for people.

I'm rather dismayed by the recent outpouring of articles about splitting the diagnosis up by people who don't even have a horse in this race but have somehow become qualified to weigh in on psychiatric diagnosis.

For example, nobody who is diagnosed with autism is proclaimed "not autistic" if they find therapy to be unhelpful.

My point is, if it is commonplace to refer to Autism as a spectrum we are already acknowledging that it is not a single thing.

Which seems to be the entire basis of this article while also mixing in the rambling of someone anti-science that frankly won't change even if it was split up.

As science learns more (or I learn more) I reserve the right to change my position.

The point of treatment isn't to "fix" or "make normal" someone. It's to give them the tools needed to participate.

For example, someone with autism might be more prone to having a meltdown. What therapy does is give them the tools to both identify that they are on the verge of such a meltdown and to de-escalate themselves.

The point of treatment is to help someone take care of themselves, hold a job, and generally not burden anyone. It's also to help a person feel better about themselves.

I don't think there is any treatment. I think it's just a set of skills that you learn in case you want to try to pursue activities that most neurotypicals take for granted. It seems like a lot of work to me, and maybe it would be easier to just let things be, as you're saying.

I know what my limitations are and I can observe others doing the things that I can't do, including my own wife, and I imagine what life would be like if I could do those things too. But it mainly boils down to having FOMO, and thinking about how much work you want to go through in order to be able to do some of the things that you're having FOMO about.

Your example person may function well within a narrow band of capability - the purpose of treatment/support is to expand that band and help maintain it. I'm not advocating forcing support on someone that doesn't want it, but I am for improving someones quality of life by expanding their choice of occupation and social environment.

Without any external support I would wake up, work, sleep, repeat. Eating? Cleaning? annoyances that just interrupt work.

I've made a lot of money doing that but it's unfulfilling and at times, disgusting.

If you want to live in a society that leaves me be - I won't starve to death but I'm never going to have a partner or a family without external services like psychology, occupational therapy, social events.

Whether I pay for these services or someone else does it doesn't matter. I want them to be available for people like me to understand that we are not alone, there's a reason we can only exist comfortably in our narrow slice of the world, and if we want to leave our bubble there is support available.

Look at the percent of those with autism that commit suicide. (And how many slow suicides of drugs or alcohol?? I don't think we even have a ballpark for this.)

It's not just whether they can take care of themselves.

I'm not entirely sure why this comment is apparently so controversial, but I think people are confused by this. My reading of it was that you meant "most autistic people you know", and you yourself are. Maybe I'm wrong?

Now yes there are people who are undiagnosed for whatever reason (including some people I know that don't see the point after being diagnosed with ADHD, I know personally I had to have this conversation with my psychologist to determine if there was a point to actually do it at that point) that use that phrase and it gets a bit tricky.

But nowhere am I trying to imply that *everyone* is saying this.

At the same time, there’s the neurodiversity movement that seeks to destigmatize and depathologize these diagnoses for both high functioning and more profoundly disabled individuals. Just because you don’t conform to the norm - and ASD is heavily defined in relation to deviation from an underspecified norm - does not make you “mentally ill.” So we have autism as an identity additional to a diagnosis, which I think can be really empowering for people, and also cause confusion and frustration for others. It’s a reclaiming of “disability” from the paternalistic and abusive medical and pseudoscientific practitioners that have been harming autistic people for decades.

I also wish you were not being downvoted. You express some common sentiments and I think your comment adds to the conversation.

> I also wish you were not being downvoted. You express some common sentiments and I think your comment adds to the conversation.

Common or reasonable sentiments or not, the whole "kids these days" overtone is tiring and annoying, and most people - online and in person - don't want to engage with that, because it does not imply a position of good faith.

"You either have some quantity of illness or you don't."

I'm not sure what kind of argument you are making for (or against?) "binary" symptoms. The DSM-5 clearly lays out the spectrum. There is a conglomerate of effects caused by autism, and where you are on "the spectrum" is determined by how many of the symptoms you have, and their severity.

There is nothing wrong with someone claiming "I'm on the spectrum" if you don't know how or what they were diagnosed with. That language is consistent with the DSM. Unless they admitted to self-diagnosing, it seems wrong to assume someone is lying about their own experience.

"You can't just ascribe some quirky, possibly somewhat anti-social, behavior as being on the spectrum"

Quriky, somewhat anti-social behaviour (in your words) essentially is one of the dialogistic criteria. But nobody would be diagnosed with autism for that alone. Just like how autistic folks usually avoid eye contact. That doesn't mean they ALL avoid eye contact, and it also doesn't mean anyone who avoids eye contact is autistic. It's a wholistic diagnosis. One would need to be experiencing SEVERAL of the symptoms to receive an autism diagnosis. IME, the majority on the spectrum are indeed level 1, and high functioning, even to the point others might question if they are really autistic.

If you take issue with people self-diagnosing, I don't think anyone would disagree. But your combativeness in just discussing the topic kind of looks similar to people who refuse to accept that autism is really a thing ("there were no autisms back in my day" kind of thing).

My OCD would not let me ignore this typo. (Just kidding - I self-diagnosed OCD)

Psychiatry still hasn't coped with the fact that it spent most of the 20th century taking Freud seriously. More recently, it still hasn't figured out a way to repudiate the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic in the 80s. The people who were involved are literally still working, and have moved on to Facilitated Communication in severe autism, Gender Identity, and are still pushing around the fraud of Multiple Personality Disorder. Literally the same people involved in all of them, and now their children. [edit: forgot about one of the most important, Recovered Memory Syndrome]

There's just no scientific method in most of psychology, it's simply guru-led systemic theories delivered mostly (but often entirely) by a single person who is licensing practitioners. What comes along with that is a complete inability for any of these theories to die. They just eventually become unpopular and unprofitable, and people jump onto the next thing.

The psychopharmacological revolution has complicated this even more, because now there are billions of dollars wrapped up in it. The only advantage to SSRIs and the new generation of knockoffs was that they didn't cause tardive dyskinesia, there was never any statistical evidence that they performed any better than the previous drugs. And in the case of the previous drugs, they weren't ever shown to have much of an effect other than quieting down patients. They were all based on the wackjob theory that people having epileptic seizures suddenly became sane, and were one of the ways of inducing a seizure-like state, along with freezing baths, saline injections, electrocution, etc. All of the pioneers were also enthusiastic lobotomists.

How can we say that these new tactics are medicine or science when the statistics on mental illness keep getting worse?

Is that really your position?

Your other words seem fine, but that is a standout sentence!

In what way is GP being dismissive, or taking the "autism is my super power" position with that comment?

And if "no one considers autism a single thing" THEN WHAT IS EACH THING? lol

We don't have a name for every color on the light spectrum, nor can the average person tell you what's different about #FF0000 vs #FE0000. They still exist!

People are trying to point out that the "spectrum" thing is the medical field doing precisely what you're asking for.

It is an Umbrella term that is well understood to be a "spectrum" and well understood to not be the same for 2 different people.

My question though, what is the point of separating it. What do we actually gain from doing so? I guarantee you these attacks will still exist.

I don't have a degree in this but I have to imagine there was a good reason that Aspergers is no longer its own diagnosis.

Still this “everyone is a bit autistic” stuff is kind of absurd. It diminishes the condition.

> most people that I know, including myself, say that we are "somewhere on the spectrum"

No one says “everyone I know is a bit paraplegic”, because that would be insane. Yet people glibly call themselves autistic as if having geeky hobbies or a job in software is the same as being diagnosable as having an autism spectrum disorder.

Again nowhere am I saying that.

Maybe I could have worded it much better but I never meant to imply, it happens that like myself a larger portion of the people I hang out with are diagnosed which for me works with just saying "most people" but I can see why that was not clear.

I doubt those types are saying much of anything. Its more likely their caregivers.

Again the old name for those of us who think its more a super power used to be called Aspergers syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome . And we got folded in to Autism Spectrum Disorder, as did a whole host of other diagnostics.

And we have been found to be more truthful, better at focusing, can hyperfocus, notice more details than NT's, and plenty more. We're only a disease cause we're the minority.

As someone with a diagnosis, I would add several sensory issues (for me it's noises, multiple conversations at the same time, stickiness, physical contact, whole categories of food and several others) and several social issues to your list of superpowers.

Seeing it purely as a positive is insultingly reductive.

To be clear: I would not take a cure if it somehow got invented, but it /is/ limiting in a multitude of ways even in the best cases.

So for dis-ease or dis-ability, it doesnt interfere with ease of life. Nor does it materially affect my ability.

> I would add several sensory issues (for me it's noises, multiple conversations at the same time, stickiness, physical contact, whole categories of food and several others) and several social issues to your list of superpowers.

And too true. I have some as you listed as well. However, I also figured out what causes them in me, and how to reduce their effects to nil. In a way, its self-treatment with n=1.

Noise: I dont have a problem with noise per se. However, when multiple people are talking or music with lyrics are on in the background, its incredibly hard for me to process what's spoken along with it.

Weirdly though, when I was principal clarinettist in a symphony, I could easily pick out any instrument by simple concentration. All I know is the noise issue with me is something with vocal processing of over-talking voices.

stickiness: for me, its dirt on my hands. Or chicken/turkey/beef/pork/lamb/goat blood. I do a lot of cooking. I hate those feelings on my skin. But I find that as long as I wash my hands before and after with a good degreasing soap (Dawn), the icky goes away. I can still do the task at speed.

I dont have the physical contact issues for people I'm close with. So, thats not an issue.

Food: theres only a few foods I can't eat, due to vomiting reasons. Tapioca based products are the big one. Aside from that, I eat everything from blue cheese, to cow tongue, offal from beef and birds,ghost peppers, pork brains, hakarl. I like the tastes and sensations that foods have. In a way, I'm wondering if this is also relayed to the supersensitive reject-foods type. Definitely not a disability.

And of course, theres the huge downsides with interpersonal interactions. Took me decades to really piece together and emulate and identify emotional state in others. But the psychologists dont know how to fix this either. Most of them are NTs who it comes naturally. But they want their indefinite sessions to do basically nothing but pay $200/hr.

> Seeing it purely as a positive is insultingly reductive.

Again, there are up and downsides to NT's and ND's.

Neurotypicals are more known for deception and lying. Or they use the term "little white lies". These things slowly stack up in NT conversations until they become huge problems. Sitcoms are based on this. But ND's, well, we are the weird ones. When someone asks "do I look good in this?" And you say "no, it clashes with your skin tone" - you were supposed to know they wanted a yes.

I feel sad that NTs can't properly hyperfocus, and can easily drop out of hyperfocus with low sensory input.

NTs memory is foggy and badly reorders things. Or they misremember and blame others for ill-perceived issues.

There are good and bad. I'm glad I'm ND, likely Aspergers (hence autistic). Most of these problems are ones that can be solved, at least for Aspergers side of things.

It doesn't really matter whose saying it. The point is that autism is not cool or fun for many people. We need a way to distinguish the difference, besides saying high or low functioning.

> We're only a disease cause we're the minority.

WHICH WE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THEN? IS IT NOT A DISEASE WHEN SOMEONE IS NON-VERBAL? Holy shit. Point, meet case.

I dont think they ever should have did that.

If the doctors say that "someone is nonverbal, pisses their pants, and needs spoonfed at 17yr old" is somehow the same as "someone who is a professional engineer who can hyperfocus but misses social cues and says weird stuff" - the doctors are completely wrong.

Those are demonstrably NOT the same thing.

And yes, my Aspergers is a super power. Those abilities (many positive, some negative) have gotten me far.

If you had visited the Aspergers and autism website support forum "wrong planet" 20 years ago you'd have seen many lower functioning than you people with "aspergers" complaining about aspects of their lives.

So I don't see how "aspergers" is a superpower.

Yeah and this is why Autism shouldn't be treated as a single condition, even if the cause is the same the outcome is meaningfully different than someone who cannot function.

This is not at all a thing. People with some mild neurodivergence sometimes being good at very specific tasks is not even in the same ballpark as "Benefits"

There's no benefit to a brain that struggles in modern society.

>but I assume that it is referring the fact that these two extremes need to be treated completely differently

Except they don't. What is different is the intensity of the treatment. My girlfriend needs patience and a little therapy. Her sister needs intense forever therapy and infinite patience and a system that will allow her to live despite never being able to be a productive member of society.

>They do not for a moment think about the more severe cases that require people to have full time caretakers because they are unable to feed themselves.

They are regularly the parents of exactly those people and are sick and tired of you speaking for them and making their life harder. Those people who need fulltime caretakers can only pay for them through social security benefits, and guess who is trying to change that?

>even discussing ASD is made remarkably difficult because these extremes are the same diagnosis.

The reams of neurodivergent people I have interacted with in my life have never found issues with this, and have regularly been very willing to engage with the nuance of a poorly understood disorder which by definition has no single cause and might be several similar looking diseases because that's what the word disorder means in medical science

The discourse around RFK is that morons with no experience, training, or even ability to read introductory material apparently should shut the fuck up, and let the adults work.

Would you say there’s no benefit to the genes associated with sickle cell anemia? How about homosexuality? Schizophrenia?

The reality is that we cannot reliably predict how genes interact with the environment in the long term. Modern society is more malleable than ever.

The fact that this topic is relevant on a site disproportionately frequented by computing professionals suggests a strictly negative characterization is incomplete even in today’s society.

Sure they may loose some sales but I have never seen many numbers on how much it really impacted sales.

Also on the disk side, I can't say I have ever looked at how much space is required for a game before buying it. If I need to clear out some stuff I will. Especially with it not being uncommon for a game to be in the 100gb realm already.

That all being said, I am actually surprised by the 11% using mechanical hard drives. I figured that NVME would be a lower percentage and many are using SSD's... but I figured the percent with machines capable of running modern games in the first place with mechanical drives would be far lower.

I do wonder how long it will be until we see games just saying they are not compatible with mechanical drives.

To be fair, at launch Starfield had pretty shit loading times even with blazing fast SSDs, and the game has a lot of loading screens, so makes sense they'll nip that one in the bud and just say it's unsupported with the slower type of disks.

This and refusing to work with the Apple TV app are the 2 big examples that come to mind but there are likely others.

I am not really sure what this solves though since you would still be using their app.

Them refusing to work with the Apple TV app was one of my biggest reasons for canceling. They really need to get knocked down a few pegs.

Not that I think Netflix is being anything other than shitty here. But Apple TV is equally egregious in not supporting Chromecast.

In this particular situation I am referring to the Apple TV App not the OS or Hardware. The ability to find shows and movies to watch across all (except netflix) of your streaming services.

According to the article they dropped support for Airplay a while ago.

The point of the app was to consolidate all of your watching across various services to a single source. It could work with third party apps and can sign up for various streaming services from within the app. This is a major way it differentiates from the Amazon Prime app that you can still use the third party apps.

So it playing third party content was always the point of the app, Apple TV+ just fit nicely within that app. Less them being competitors and more just why it exists in the first place.

Netflix to my knowledge is the only one that is resistant to using this service, I have not seen any other not work with it. The app is very convenient for keeping up with what I watch across services.

Netflix refuses to participate in “stuff this user watches”, it would be trivial to do, but Neflix jealously guards its viewership numbers and I expect this is the main reason they don’t do it. That and… they’d rather you just browse Netflix and not watch other services.

The “stuff this user watches” app is very useful! I like it a lot, when I’m not watching Netflix stuff! It works with every service except Netflix!

But the moment the family shifts over to watching some Netflix show, it forces us out of the habit of using the TV app, and then we go back to the annoying “spend 90 seconds trying to find what we were watching on Hulu” experience, which is worse in every way.

I'm suddenly feeling that the next step for Netflix is making a dedicated streaming hardware device solely for Netflix. Subsidized by ads of course. Like the reverse of Roku.