You could have at least transformed the inaccessible video form into text.

It seems like they’re referring to https://github.com/Batlez/ChatGPT-Jailbroken/, where you can check the source code.

To me it looks like all that does is make some kind of placeholder replacement, and there’s some kind of custom prompt storage and retrieval.

Either way, if it does what you expect it to, doing more than intended by the service provider, it only works until they fix some checks or make some UI changes, and they may hold you accountable for evading technical measures to gain more than you subscribed (and paid) for.

Personally, I wouldn’t trust integrating a random third party logic on a registered service. At the very least, I would disable auto-updating or copy/fork it.

I don’t see them claiming it being “safe to download”. I assume you’re taking the implication or assumption as advocation and a safety assessment.

Depending on what you mean by “safe”, no it’s not safe.

I’m not familiar with the ChatGPT service in particular.

Can you describe the curvature of the hill as a mathematical function? Just so I can get a better picture of it.

Pay what? A physical copy? A digital license for streaming on a platform? A digital rental? A month of streaming service that includes it? Taking free access and public libraries (like public broadcasting libraries), temporary or time-limited into account? There’s way too much variance to make any reasonable assessment on this.

To get an idea of price variance, even without monthly services, which make individual consumption cheaper still, let’s look at the value of digital products on Steam.

Comparing my Steam account value calculated by SteamDB, the “lowest value” is 23% of the “value today”. Taking into account that prices reduce significantly over time, you could put it much lower.

How do you expect people to calculate “if you had to pay for every item”?

Earlier this year Japanese lawmakers were shocked to realize that illegal consumption of manga cost the industry around 1 trillion yen.

Why do articles quoting shit like this never contextualize it?

I assume these numbers are, like they always are, a consumption = loss of buy equation, which is not a realistic calculation at all.

The article talks at length about accessibility, yet fails to point to that issue when quoting these “cost” numbers.

It’s not like they’re hosting any of those. It’s not costing them anything. At most it should be labeled loss, but an equation makes no sense then either.

Comparison of BitTorrent clients - Wikipedia; qBittorrent, Tixati, BiglyBT, BitComet

cuiiliste.de is an effort (of one person) to make the list and its effects transparent, and inform about how you can switch DNS.

A magnet link can be used to download the torrent file.

They’re only more private in the sense that the link itself is not a torrent file you download and open. Instead, it’s a link to that torrent file, downloadable through bittorrent.

It doesn’t make your downloading any more private.

How do they make their service “not available” to a country?

By IP address location? Which, in my understanding, is not accurate.

By terms, stating “you can’t use it if you live there”?

Port forwarding allows a connection to reach your fiber in the first place.

If you buy the book but listen to it as an audiobook, wouldn’t buying the audiobook in the first place be an option then?