Can’t imagine the weight of air inside the holes is significant compared to the weight of cheese; taking a glance at the numbers, cheese is 800-900x more dense than air. Given cheese is sold by weight, more holes = very slightly less cheese, practically negligible.

Now I’m curious about how much space a block of 99% holes cheese would occupy. Maybe something like aerocheese, with a whole bunch of microscopic air bubbles throughout.

The assumption that cheese has holes is not true. Many times I come home with cheese with no holes.

This is not Windows, your BIOS controls the power button functionality.

This external drive I have is just USB mass storage. It’s using the USB protocol and shows as removable external storage, same as a flash drive.

Removable storage is not the issue here. There is no significant overhead introduced by having removable storage with USB mass storage protocol.

OP is forced into using MTP which does suck and adds overhead. This is not the “normal” way of transferring to me, that would be USB mass storage.

No, that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Decompressing the zip on the phone is an inefficient operation, as you are reading and writing to/from the same storage device. It’s much more efficient to forgo the zip altogether and just transfer the files from one device to the other. No zipping whatsoever.

As said in other comments, it’s MTP that’s the issue here. Just use USB mass storage. MTP blows.

Interesting, so eSATA protocol can be used over a USB physical link?

Why does this overhead not exist when I’m sending files over USB to an external HDD or flash drive?

I have an external HDD array connected via USB 3.2 and it handles file transfers same as a SATA drive. There’s no handshaking beyond the initial negotiation of the USB connection, certainly not on a per-file basis.

I don’t see that specified anywhere, just looked at OPs history. MTP blows. Surely that’s not the only option on Android these days?

Right… that’s what I’m saying! My entire point.

Sending a zip of music files to a phone, then decompressing that zip on the phone, seems like a really stupid idea to me. You’ve now set up a situation where you’re reading and writing to one drive rather than reading from one and writing to another.

Understood. I’m also talking about sending a full zip over to the flash drive, then unzipping it on that same flash drive.

Music files are large enough to not get affected by overhead like sending a ton of 1kb files. I see no significant difference in transfer time sending 100 10mb files or a single 1000mb file.

This is a totally different story with actually small files (ie kilobytes). Music downloads are not small, they’re multiple megabytes.

This does not match my experiences. Transferring files over USB would absolutely be faster than sending a zip and unzipping it on a flash drive. I can easily do 300MB/s over USB3.2 when transferring music files.

Unzipping a large file is going to be a bunch of reads and write and the large file is going to transfer at the exact same speed as the smaller music files, which are not “small”, they’re still tens of MB. So, the zip and music files take roughly the same time except now you have to wait to unzip with one large file. It does not save time.

Transferring tens of thousands of 1kb files will slow things down, and I’d zip this, but music files are big enough.

Isn’t this just going to be happen when the zip is decompressed, thus not saving time? I would actually expect it to be worse, since now you’re reading and writing from the same drive instead of reading from one, and writing it to another.

I didn’t figure I’d ever have to explain to someone why abusing a human child is fundamentally different from and worse than drawing on top of a fuckin’ JPEG.

Holy shit. You don’t. Stop inventing arguments and read what the fuck I’m writing. Answer those questions.

What advantage does having unique terms for real and AI content confer? Answer in one sentence.

Man, your reading comprehension is really shit. You could have just stopped after the first question. Yet again you’re making an assumption about the purpose of the term.

I’d love to get paid to test experimental drugs. So far it’s only cost me money.

I already did the “what words mean” thing earlier.

-involves a child
-is sexual
-is abusive (here’s your Simpsons exclusion, btw)
-is material

That’s literally every word of CSAM, and it fits.

We need a term to specifically refer to actual photographs of actual child abuse

Why? You’ve made a whole lot of claims it should be your way but you’ve provided no sources nor any justification as to why we need to delineate between real and AI.

You’re the only one using that definition. There is no stipulation that it’s from something that happened.

Where is your definition coming from?

Dude, you’re the only one who uses that strict definition. Go nuts with your course of prescriptivism but I’m pretty sure it’s a lost cause.

The *entire point* of the term CSAM is that it’s the actual real evidence of child rape.

You are completely wrong.

https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abuse-material/what-is-csam/

“CSAM (“see-sam”) refers to any visual content—photos, videos, livestreams, or AI-generated images—that shows a child being sexually abused or exploited.”

“Any content that sexualizes or exploits a child for the viewer’s benefit” <- AI goes here.

deleted by creator