mp3va.com has been listed in U.S. Trade Representative annual reports as being unauthorized to sell music. Legal experts have explicitly stated that while MP3VA claims to operate legally under Ukrainian copyright laws, “it is not legal for them to sell this music in the United States”.

I’ve never used the site, but there seems to be an argument here regarding moral law and legalities within the United States.

But the site claims that:

Service www.Mp3va.com pays full-scale author’s royalties to owners of pieces of music, trademarks, names, slogans and other copyright objects used on the site.

If that’s the case, I think the OP should feel good about it.

Buying off a site like them likely pays out more per user than listening to the same songs on a streaming platform.

I should probably turn it off 😧

Experts warn the rhetoric echoes tactics used by authoritarian regimes seeking to suppress dissent abroad. The FBI defines such measures as transnational repression, a worrying trend for democracies.

This is this the same FBI who is redacting Trump’s name from the Epstein files. South Korea must be doing something right! 😂

Edit: fixing autocorrect gone wild!

So, Trump’s meeting with Putin went well? Fucking monsters.

I seriously only want to have options for sorting when I do a search. That’s the only thing that I need for it to be “perfect”.

I used to run software on an old phone that basically worked as a camera NVR.

At some point the battery swelled up and I’m glad my house didn’t burn to the ground. I only noticed it because the glass screen protector on that phone had popped off from the screen flexing under pressure 😮

As long as you have a way of monitoring your phones, or at least physically isolating them from important things, then you could probably do it without many risks.

These standards have also spread to more common fashion, advertising clothes for ordinary people.

No doubt.

If there’s a method for that, that actually works, that would be great.

First, block and avoid ads. They are poison to the mind. Dropping social media is also strongly suggested.

It’s hard to not fall prey to marketing companies if ads surround you on a daily basis, and I can’t honestly imagine how difficult it must be for any teen who uses the internet or apps unfiltered. It’s a losing battle if those influences aren’t dealt with first.

So there is 100% an unhealthy attitude towards weight in the fashion industry, that needs to be regulated.

In fairness, the fashion industry is a circus, almost literally. The stuff you see on the runway is so ridiculous that they might as well simply be costumes and not clothes. And the models, while they do suffer real consequences, are forced to have an unhealthy look to fit the character they play in this circus.

I would much rather see positive education into how to actually be fit and healthy, so that teens have no reason to look at these circus performers as a template.

but there also needs to be the possibility for clothes brands that specialize in clothing for “big” people to show their products in a reasonable way.

Absolutely. The reality is, people come in all different shapes and sizes, so there’s a realistic expectation that they’ll still need to buy clothes. But the normalization of super heavy (or super skinny) needs to go away.

a fashion standard people pursue, being extremely thin is.

I strongly disagree.

Standard people want to look healthy, fit, and maybe have some muscle. You know, the stuff that the majority would say brings sex appeal.

But nobody wants to look like a sad, malnourished bonerack, unless they have an eating disorder. I’d argue that most people find the look of gauntness, protruding bones, no muscle, etc. to be unflattering and quite disgusting. There are probably studies on this, I haven’t looked.

The issue is that the fashion industry seems to like this look, and people with eating disorders find validation in that. It is a terrible cycle, no denying that.

That does beg the question, though: why not set the standard by having fit people wear your clothing? Why malnourished and sickly? Only a tiny fraction of the population has an eating disorder that causes them to be underweight, and I doubt very much that these companies are making all their profits off them.

It is not just about being unhealthy, it’s about not setting unhealthy standards.

I agree, which is why we should not be normalizing obesity, one of the top causes of death and morbidity, in advertisements. This isn’t an opinion, I already linked a study showing that ads, even when intended to be positive, negatively affect obese people due to the normalization of this unhealthy standard.

I’d agree if you were arguing about banning all unhealthy behaviours in ads.

I’m for that.

I don’t think fat people need to be brought into it in this case though, this law is about the fashion industry encouraging eating disorders.

Per the paper I linked a few replies back, it’s completely relevant and urgent to bring fat people into this, because there is real harm in the messaging they receive, and it’s having even greater real-world consequences (due to the greater number of people impacted).

The fashion industry does need to be addressed. But I also think that people forget that fashion models also victims. The whole thing is awful.

Someone who sees a bonerack and says “I want to be like them!” has an eating disorder (less than 2% of teens are anorexic). We can go after the ads to protect this segment of the population, but ads don’t turn healthy people into malnourished skin bags, because healthy people view it as disgusting and unhealthy.

Consider that being dangerously underweight is almost unheard of in modern society outside of eating disorders, but obesity is extremely common and getting worse (over 22% of teens, according to the CDC).

Even the NIH makes almost no mention of being underweight as being a problem in any age group, and they also show a disturbing trend in obesity, even among kids and teens. (SOURCE)

In my opinion, these ads create the same level of harm for someone who is obese, sees a body positivity ad that normalizes obesity, and says “See, I’m perfect the way I am!”, and continues with unhealthy lifestyle choices because of that (as the studies suggest).

Look, I’m bias, I hate ads. I would love to see all forms of harmful ads being banned. Including promoting undereating, overeating, gambling, driving cars, drinking, smoking, weed, religion, and medication.

Ads are designed to manipulate people, and they are especially dangerous when they target vulnerable demographics (like teenage women or the obese), so laws should be put in place to protect people. In addition, I encourage everyone to preserve their mental health and defend against these marketing companies by blocking any and all ads.

No to “striving to be obese”, yes to “being ok with staying obese.”

Does that matter if the end result is people still being unhealthy because of the messaging in these ads?

Do you have any evidence that people are striving to be obese because of these adverts?

Yes, there is evidence. For example, this paper from 2015.

I wouldn’t say they are “striving” to be obese, but conceding to an unhealthy weight is objectively just as bad.

Honestly, no, because I block all ads… and have no reason to see fashion ads at all.

Buy if I recall correctly, there have been several beauty brands that have overweight models and then frame it as “perfect” or something like that.

Like like with malnurished models, promoting obesity as “perfect” is damaging to anyone influenced by the marketing, especially teens.

I get their inclusion and body positivity mission, but neither obesity or severe malnutrition should be promoted as anything but unhealthy.

That’s good news.

Can we also ban ads with obese people in them, too?

There are two ends to the unhealthy weight spectrum, so it’s not right that only one is being targeted.

Unfortunately, the only other alternative to “auto” under Profile is “main”, which I have no idea what it does.

And under level, it’s either “auto” or a bunch of numbers.

That said, I was under the impression that any manual settings would override the settings in the “auto” profile. Is that not the case?

Merz hailed the deal, which was clinched in a ballroom at Trump’s golf resort in Scotland, saying it avoided “needless escalation in transatlantic trade relations” and averted a potentially damaging trade war.

Nothing about this “deal” prevents Trump from being Trump.

EU caved, and that’s a massive show of weakness.

I found my answer then! I appreciate that 👍

Have you taken very verbose logs to see if there’s differences that stand out?

Nope, but that could be a next step. I was hoping for an easy fix (like I did something wrong in the settings).

Realistically, if this can’t be solved by using the built-in setting options, then it’s not worth the trouble to “fix” anything. It still works, so I’m glad to have the option.

To match it completely I think you need to disregard the presets and set everything yourself, like CRF and everything.

Is there a way to disable the preset completely? There’s no “none” option, just “speed, balanced, and quality”, but I set everything else up manually.