Presumably, the “algorithm” is based on whatever is most profitable. So probably some combination of most viewers, best ad engagement (click through rate), and best conversion/appeal to Premium subs.

That’s assuming YouTube’s primary goal is to make money, and which it should be as part of a publicly traded company.

My point is that those thumbnails and titles work, so if we want something different, we need to reward better thumbnails and titles and stop engaging w/ poor ones.

Exactly. Following the flow of traffic is more important than following posted speed limit signs, in both directions.

That sounds horrifying. :)

based on already getting downvoted

In this case, yes, but in general, downvotes just mean your take is unpopular. The downvotes could be from people who don’t like Tesla and see any defense of Tesla as worthy of downvotes.

So good on you for making the point that you believe in. It’s good to try to understand why something you wrote was downvoted instead of just knee-jerk assuming that it’s because it’s a “bad take.”

algorithm-driven platform

And what is this “algorithm” based on? Actual user behavior. So the way to correct an algorithm is to change actual user behavior, no?

Hey, watch where you’re putting your hands.

neither device was ever built or tested

I know, right?

My old, crappy phone that retailed for $250 (got for much cheaper) had 4GB RAM (released 2019 or 2020), and my current one has 8GB RAM. The one before that had 2GB IIRC, and was released around 2017, and it was crappy for the time.

I feel jealous for the hearing impaired. Just think of everyone and they’re dog showing off how dumb it is all the time.

Never have I appreciated not having features so much.

My city library will pull from nearby libraries for a fee (like $2/work I think?), or I can use my card at those same libraries for free (just need to return to the same library), but AFAIK they don’t pull from anything beyond that. We’re a relatively small city (like 30-40k people), so maybe things are different downtown.

University libraries, however, will pull from pretty much everywhere, and they have access to a ton of online academic resources.

Well, except trademark and fraud. But there are plenty of workarounds to that.

The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That’s long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it’s irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I’m currently living off the royalties).

The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.

Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it’s no longer available commercially for a “reasonable” price. As in, if I can’t go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.

What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?

I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it’s still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.

Exactly! That’s what we had originally in the US, and I thought that was more than fair. I would add that the renewal should only be awarded if they can prove they need more time to recoup R&D costs and it’s still available commercially.

So yeah, something in the neighborhood of 10-15 years w/ a renewal sounds totally fair to me. Let them keep the trademarks and whatnot as long as they’re in use (e.g. you shouldn’t be able to make a new entry in a series w/o the author’s permission for the marks, but fanfic that explicitly mentions it’s not original/canon would probably fall under fair use), but the actual copyright should expire very quickly.

Mine doesn’t…

Paying for privacy should be necessary because it’s the only way to fund development of the software you rely on. If you’re not paying, you’re the product.

I pay for email and a handful of other services online. I would be happy to pay for online content if that eliminated ads and tracking. I want to help fund Firefox, but my only option is Mozilla VPN/Relay. Donations don’t fund development, and the rest of the paid products have privacy issues. I also have concerns about Mozilla VPN, why wouldn’t I just go to Mullvad directly instead of adding another party that can potentially track me?

I’m happy to pay, let me pay.

Looking over their financials, they’d have to cut l over half their workforce and relocate to a cheaper area (to cut salaries by more than half) to get close to being financially stable without search income.

Website should be sufficient.

Oh man, that’s too good. Thanks for sharing this. Now I kinda want to ask it about blue waffles, but I’m a little scared to.