That wasn't even the problem. People have created great content and continued to do so well into the time when they could actually make money from it. What killed it was that people with high production values can't continue due to the risk of demonetization while those without (i.e. the "10 things that will blow your mind" bull and the assholes that get most of their money from the companies whose products they hawk anyway) can.
So what's left on Youtube is videos from large studios that have a relevant deal with YouTube, videos without production values whose makers don't give a shit that they get demonetized because they can crank out more and if only one of them makes money they're in the black and videos that are more advertisment than the crap YouTube cuts into them.
Why did you post this as an AC? Now people will ignore it and not read the ONLY sensible comment one could make here.
What many people forget is that the whole https thing is not just about encrypting traffic. It's at the very least as much about verifying who you're talking to. This is a perfect example of why this should not even be an issue, but is because people got used to clicking on the "trust it anyway" button.
In 1960s, an income of one worker could feed a family of 4, buy a house and a car. In 1990s, an income of two workers cannot.
If you want to solve social problems, start with the erosion of the middle class and wage dumping. You'll notice that "socialist" Europe, where it still is true that one earner can feed a family, does not have those problems. Now what do you think might be the reason for this?
Unethical by whose standards? Personally, I find a lot of things certain churches do highly unethical while they themselves view themselves as the pinnacle of ethics and morality.
But I basically come here exactly for their comments. It's a bit like reading rebuttals from religious nutjobs who get cornered more and more and come up with more and more ridiculous explanations for clinging to their beliefs.
The question whether a corporation cares about a law can be answered by a simple equation: If the revenue for breaking the law is higher than the chance of getting caught times the fine to pay when caught, ignore the law. Then it's just part of the operating cost.
People dying isn't necessarily a no-go either. If you can somehow turn it into a "regrettable oversight", maybe add some human error and then threaten to dump a few thousand unemployed on the streets if you're fined more than the equivalent of a finger waggling and a "no, no, no, naughty corporation!", why bother caring about human lives?
Nah, that's just a side effect of profit maximization. Corporations don't want to kill people. That's bad for business. There's fewer customers, and what's worse, fewer people competing for jobs so you might have to pay a living wage at some point even if you kill too many of them.
Yeah, next time make sure you only have poor idiots that can't afford good lawyers in the crashing planes. In other words, if you skirt the security regulations, build all-coach planes.
It creates jobs. First by letting the aerospace industry skimp on security standards so they can build cheaper planes, and then by freeing up the jobs of those using the planes.
I'd really LOVE to know where you get that bullshit from. Europe freezing over really is a new kind of bizarre that I haven't seen even in the most insane loony claims.
Even if it was true that a warmer climate leads to more rain, what on earth makes you assume that this rain would fall on the Sahara desert? Did you take a look at a globe recently? The Sahara desert is pretty close to oceans, i.e. a source for water that could rain. Closer at least than the very green and fertile plains of eastern Europe. Notice something? Doesn't rain there now. Certainly not for a lack of global water, but simply because the winds don't blow that way.
What you DO get with more rain is that those places that already get plenty of it get more of it. In other words, flooding will get worse.
Then again, why do I care? It will take more than 30 years to fuck up this place for good, and by then I'll be dead. So yes, I'm with you. Don't change a thing. I want to live out my years squandering, not scrimping.
It's not. The group of anti-vaxxers is neither conservative no liberal, neither poor nor rich. The only common denominator I have detected is a distrust of science and/or government. Sadly, this distrust of "scientific facts" doesn't lead to own research (personally I would base this on a lack of ability, i.e. missing prerequisite information and knowledge to actually DO own research) but instead to believing someone else. It's what we find abundant in various conspiracy circles: "I do not want A to be true, so I'll believe B without reason".
They "feel" that whatever they're told by science and/or government is wrong, so they search on the internet for "alternative views". And of course they'll find some and accept it, sadly without questioning or even reviewing the veracity, plausibility of at least possibility of that "alternative claim" because they match what they "feel". And now they have someone else saying what they "feel", so they feel vindicated and right.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't hear either with my headphones on.
And who died, made you king and let you dictate what I may or may not see?
If you want to protect your kids from "seeing stuff", maybe don't use the internet as some cheap babysitter?
That wasn't even the problem. People have created great content and continued to do so well into the time when they could actually make money from it. What killed it was that people with high production values can't continue due to the risk of demonetization while those without (i.e. the "10 things that will blow your mind" bull and the assholes that get most of their money from the companies whose products they hawk anyway) can.
So what's left on Youtube is videos from large studios that have a relevant deal with YouTube, videos without production values whose makers don't give a shit that they get demonetized because they can crank out more and if only one of them makes money they're in the black and videos that are more advertisment than the crap YouTube cuts into them.
What ads?
Just don't watch videos from the assholes that scam kids into thinking they're friends when they're actually just getting paid to promote some crap.
Why did you post this as an AC? Now people will ignore it and not read the ONLY sensible comment one could make here.
What many people forget is that the whole https thing is not just about encrypting traffic. It's at the very least as much about verifying who you're talking to. This is a perfect example of why this should not even be an issue, but is because people got used to clicking on the "trust it anyway" button.
Funny enough, the average engineer I met is way more ethical than the average manager.
In 1960s, an income of one worker could feed a family of 4, buy a house and a car.
In 1990s, an income of two workers cannot.
If you want to solve social problems, start with the erosion of the middle class and wage dumping. You'll notice that "socialist" Europe, where it still is true that one earner can feed a family, does not have those problems. Now what do you think might be the reason for this?
Unethical by whose standards? Personally, I find a lot of things certain churches do highly unethical while they themselves view themselves as the pinnacle of ethics and morality.
Any smart AI would reply "A strange game, this social outrage thing. The only winning move is not to play."
As is typical for Google, they didn't quite go through with it but only did one part of it.
For now, they cancel AI ethics.
But I basically come here exactly for their comments. It's a bit like reading rebuttals from religious nutjobs who get cornered more and more and come up with more and more ridiculous explanations for clinging to their beliefs.
But aqua man sucks.
The question whether a corporation cares about a law can be answered by a simple equation: If the revenue for breaking the law is higher than the chance of getting caught times the fine to pay when caught, ignore the law. Then it's just part of the operating cost.
People dying isn't necessarily a no-go either. If you can somehow turn it into a "regrettable oversight", maybe add some human error and then threaten to dump a few thousand unemployed on the streets if you're fined more than the equivalent of a finger waggling and a "no, no, no, naughty corporation!", why bother caring about human lives?
Was it properly attributed?
I don't have prejudices, as far as I'm concerned all religions are equally useless.
I noticed that they react to the can opener way better than my voice.
Nah, that's just a side effect of profit maximization. Corporations don't want to kill people. That's bad for business. There's fewer customers, and what's worse, fewer people competing for jobs so you might have to pay a living wage at some point even if you kill too many of them.
Yeah, next time make sure you only have poor idiots that can't afford good lawyers in the crashing planes. In other words, if you skirt the security regulations, build all-coach planes.
It creates jobs. First by letting the aerospace industry skimp on security standards so they can build cheaper planes, and then by freeing up the jobs of those using the planes.
I'd really LOVE to know where you get that bullshit from. Europe freezing over really is a new kind of bizarre that I haven't seen even in the most insane loony claims.
Even if it was true that a warmer climate leads to more rain, what on earth makes you assume that this rain would fall on the Sahara desert? Did you take a look at a globe recently? The Sahara desert is pretty close to oceans, i.e. a source for water that could rain. Closer at least than the very green and fertile plains of eastern Europe. Notice something? Doesn't rain there now. Certainly not for a lack of global water, but simply because the winds don't blow that way.
What you DO get with more rain is that those places that already get plenty of it get more of it. In other words, flooding will get worse.
Then again, why do I care? It will take more than 30 years to fuck up this place for good, and by then I'll be dead. So yes, I'm with you. Don't change a thing. I want to live out my years squandering, not scrimping.
If they are required to censor everything that might interfere with an election, that's what they do.
In the name of atheism? None.
So it seems all it takes is an authority that lets you say "he made me do it".
Ok, so it takes religion to feel good about it...
It's not. The group of anti-vaxxers is neither conservative no liberal, neither poor nor rich. The only common denominator I have detected is a distrust of science and/or government. Sadly, this distrust of "scientific facts" doesn't lead to own research (personally I would base this on a lack of ability, i.e. missing prerequisite information and knowledge to actually DO own research) but instead to believing someone else. It's what we find abundant in various conspiracy circles: "I do not want A to be true, so I'll believe B without reason".
They "feel" that whatever they're told by science and/or government is wrong, so they search on the internet for "alternative views". And of course they'll find some and accept it, sadly without questioning or even reviewing the veracity, plausibility of at least possibility of that "alternative claim" because they match what they "feel". And now they have someone else saying what they "feel", so they feel vindicated and right.