So… not on my TV then?

Some sites go by that, some go by user agent. I believe xh can fake it’s user agent, if I’m not mistaken.

A good compromise would be to go by known user agents, but also heed the accept header. 👍

Oookay, I guess it detects the user agent and only sends the IP number when it detects curl. Using xh did not work as intended.

xh ifconfig.me | wl-copy

👍

Saving this post to go spelunking after it has amassed some replies. Great question! I love music exploration.

Nah, Pi-Hole has never been able to block YT ads.

Thanks for the correction!

Yes, Pihole can solve that. “Normal” people don’t have Piholes though. And “normal” people really do purchase televisions, and install the YouTube app and watch videos with it.

Even better, yeah. So this solution shouldn’t feel necessary unless as a last ditch effort, definitely.

Would that allow me to log in to my YouTube account, watch my curated recommendations, thousands-of-items Watch Later list, watch shorts, etc, just without ads?

Big no thank you to anything Nvidia. Plasma Bigscreen doesn’t seem production-ready yet, by the looks of its web site. Either way, that would require me to get a PC and run its output to my TV, right? I’m unfortunately not considering that option right now.

CachyOS, Steam Machine, I already have a beast Arch Linux PC that I game on, so that’s not necessary. But what about that Waydroid business? Would I flash that on to my LG TV and run that as its OS or what is that about? All of these github projects that people link to do such a terrible job of explaining what it is exactly that they offer, and what to do with them.

Thanks for the recommendations.

Anything for WebOS (LG TVs)?

This should only become a necessary solution if YouTube invents a way to inject ads directly into the video stream of the video you’re watching, like old school broadcasting.

Is that available for TVs?

Is that available for TVs?

If you just click into the article you are absolutely blasted with statement after statement that this is only for TVs. Obviously if you have an ad blocker you wouldn’t see ads. 🙂

Can confirm, have had interactions with that baby before. Absolutely insufferable.

We don’t see eye to eye regarding most things here. Thanks for the back and forth. Wishing you a good day.

All that is fine and dandy, just like “awesome” and other examples, but when there are more descriptive words, I still think it’s better to use them, also in favor of literacy. Why stamp everything with “accident” when you can use better words from a more expansive vocabulary? These are journalist writers ffs. They do this for a living. I’m merely disappointed. [Edit: huh. I guess there’s no article here. 😳 Never mind about expectations, I suppose.]

I agree with you that you should respect all meanings of a word but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable), and sometimes there are just more descriptive, seemingly forgotten words to choose from, also as in this case.

I’m also on your side regarding “literally”, from the tail end of your comment. I don’t use it as an intensifier. It’s stupid. But I reluctantly accept that language is malleable.

And I’m saying 1-b is so strongly universal in English speaking countries that it should probably swap places with 1-a. Arguing against this feels pretty nitpicky to be honest. Look at the ratio of people who agree with the top level comment, e.g. 🤷‍♂️

I’ll concede your argument might not be “strange”—that was a poor choice of word—but you are openly ignoring counter arguments which feels strange. And saying things like “I don’t speak Latin” out of nowhere in the middle of argumentation, like that’s a counter argument.

This whole correspondence just feels like I’m talking to a character from Alice in Wonderland. 🫪

So you’re making some strange argument for some reason, and providing evidence to support your claims that actually show evidence to support my claims, but you want me to ignore that part.

Let’s wrap this up shall we. 🙄