When our living conditions deteriorate gradually, we adapt to these conditions instead of fixing of them. But sudden threats get sorted out immediately.
Coal has done far more damage than nuclear energy ever will, but coal has over 2300 stations worldwide and nuclear has 400.
The frogs only stayed in the water because Friedrich Goltz lobotomized the frogs beforehand. Which makes it a perfect metaphor because the Murdoch media has definitely lobotomized the public.
I’m a software engineer at AWS and work on video content delivery for services like Netflix. The idea that one single ad could cover the cost of delivering a video that’s been replicated in multiple servers, multiple regions, multiple countries throughout the world is pretty hilarious. No matter how much money you think YouTube is making I can almost guarantee it’s not enough. There is a reason there is no significant competition in this space, it makes no money.
How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?
I doubt they had been just sinking money for the kind of their hearts.
I do not know how much it cost to run a service like YouTube. Or how much money they make by ads or other ways. But they have been running for long enough to be a successful business.
And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.
How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?
Investor money, then Google money. Video streaming requires fuckloads of storage and is a HUGE bandwidth hog, especially if people want to watch stuff at 1080p or higher resolutions. Youtube is a money pit, but it’s a major and nearly untouchable internet power, especially given its size and reach.
And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.
The “easy money” from loans with very low interest rates has dried up, also Google being Google.
There’s also the cost to transcode the video and audio streams into different formats so they don’t have to do it on demand whenever someone watches a video. That’s a lot of compute cost plus they have to store all of those additional transcodes which is more storage cost.
I know that for many years in the 2000s and early 2010s- what many consider to be the golden age of Youtube- they were losing money. That’s what I think a lot or people don’t get when they claim “enshittification”- the services they are complaining about are unsustainable in their current form. That’s what it takes to establish a digital product- grow your base first while bleeding money, then figure out a way to monetize it later. As capital tightens up, the clock is running out for brands like Netflix, Discord, Youtube etc to start making money. That’s the part that sucks as a consumer but idk what else YouTube can do if it wants to be profitable. They offer a premium version for people that don’t want to watch ads.
Unfortunately, YouTube exists because content creators make money out of the ads.
But free content video is possible with a peer to peer protocol. The content creator get the responsibility to keep the seed alive. The more popular, the more it gets shared, the more it’s available.
But content creators don’t work for free, and public libraries don’t have the resources to store all the dumb content people deem necessary to make.
Reminder: give money to Wikipedia. This thing is a miracle.
It’s not really a single ad though, right? It’s a single ad per view. I realize that each view costs money, but at some point you’re just paying for bandwidth, after paying the upfront replication costs right? Assuming replication is an upfront cost, I might be misunderstanding there. If that’s true though, then surely there’s a breakpoint where ads start making money. Though I suppose if that breakpoint is like a million views, your point basically still stands.
You’re forgetting amortization. You can’t copy a video file to a drive and expect it to last forever. It requires energy to run and the drivers break down over time. Google is one of the largest consumers of HDDs and SSDs in the world. Plus you need to pay engineers who maintain the whole thing, pay the finance team to make orders, etc. And then you have to have recycling and logistics. I bet they dispose of the whole truck loads of old drives every day, you can’t put that many in your recycling bin and call it a day.
What’s less sustainable is centralized web. You must know that since you work for Amazon, right?
When PopcornTime was still a thing you could watch adfree any movie you’d like even in 4K because resources were shared through peer to peer.
Now, YouTube gets up to 12$ RPM, content creators get maybe 40% of that. With 2 prerolls and 2 midrolls + banners they get plenty enough money to make things work. Google has the most aggressive VASTs of the market. They are everywhere, called multiple times per pages.
Spare us your tears.
Besides, no significant competition? Is that a joke?
For the type of service they are (hosting random one-off videos and series that anyone can load and optionally kicking back a portion to the content creators) - who are they competing against? If you go on the street and ask random people to name 3 streaming services that do that, you’ll likely get YouTube, “ummm”, and “I dunno”
None of those services offer the same kind of content though. Tiktok offers 30s - a couple of minutes videos (vines, essentially), streams are hours long and are fundamentally different because they’re interactive with chat. YouTube offers the 5min - 30min edited content, with exceptions here and there (1hr+ content).
Your 11 year old nephew doesn’t watch YouTube because he’s 11 and has the attention span of a squirrel. He’s not watching a 30 minute video about the Canadian housing crisis.
If you think it’s sustainable you can create a new service yourself, no one is stopping you. I’ve done cost estimations for projects with 1M+ customers and the margins are so tight we’ve killed at least a dozen services despite pouring months or years of effort into their designs and prototypes. It’s easy for you to complain about freebies from your couch but the reality is that if someone could make a better service than YouTube, they already would have. “Spare is your tears” lol.
Question that pertains to general hosting at those scales. In your opinion what costs more, distributing a piece of content that will get 1M views, or 1000 pieces of content that will get 1000 each? I know the math wont add up, but I dont know where the cost bottleneck is. Is hosting something even though it isnt used or that viral spike in views that kills attempts to make a smaller service like this?
The popular story is that, on Groucho’s 1950s TV quiz show “You Bet Your Life,” a female contestant said that the reason she had 22 kids was “because I love children, and I think that’s our purpose here on earth, and I love my husband.” To which Groucho supposedly replied: “I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.”
that poor woman - imagine being pregnant more than 15 years (assuming some twins) of your life, with 22 kids there probably were a bunch of miscarriages too. the toll it took on her body must have been horrifying.
I will allow someone to buy me, but like software you won’t “own” me. You will just be liscencing me and, at any time, I may revoke your access to myself.
Years ago someone left my employer abruptly, and on their desk was left a fancy vertical mouse. It sat there for a few days, and I kept glancing over, at first ambivalent, but as time passed the temptation increased. I debated the dilemma of becoming a vertical mouse person, was that really for me? Eventually I succumbed and thought hey it’s worth a try, see what it’s like to be one of them… pure learning opportunity…
Then something happened… I got used to it in about a half hour and in the first day my precision improved. A sudden urge came over me to tell all my coworkers, was I really becoming one of those people so fast? Trying to resist was futile and within a couple days I became a vertical mouse person, always wanting to tell everyone how great they are, constantly resisting the urge. I forgot what life was like with a horizontal mouse, and I never looked back.
The edict was issued in 1615 after a storm destroyed three Basque whaling vessels on an expedition in Iceland. Eighty members of the crew survived, said Gudmundsson, and were left stranded in the area. “They had nothing to eat, and there were accounts of them robbing people and farmers,” he said.
The brewing conflict between locals and the whalers prompted then-sheriff Ari Magnússon to draw up a decree that allowed Basques to be killed with impunity in the district. In the weeks that followed, more than 30 Basques were killed in raids led by the sheriff and local farmers. “It’s one of the darkest chapters of our history,” said Gudmundsson, noting that the incident known as the Slaying of the Spaniards ranks among the country’s bloodiest massacres.
Four centuries later, Gudmundsson decided it was time to set right the wrongs of history. Last week, at the unveiling of a memorial dedicated to the Basque whalers who were killed, he repealed the decree. “This decision was made 400 years ago and it has never formally been repealed until now.”
This is horrible but I can’t help but laugh. “Okay, about 80 people are stuck here because their ships ran aground last night. No one knows they’re here, so they have no way to leave unless we help them, so the logical decision here is to simply murder them until there are none left. All in favor of this, say aye!”
I think it was more of, “hey, who the hell is suddenly robbing us?!”
They didn’t have the internet and daily news to tip everyone off. There’d just suddenly be stranded people near by, and if they decided to pillage before asking… I could EASILY see being hostile as a reasonable response. Not necessarily the KoS law, unless they really did just resort to pillaging and theft often.
Yea, I don’t envy their situation for sure. Just that it didn’t necessarily have to start from malice. As you point out, it may not have even been malice from the thieves, maybe even if they were literally stealing.
Coming from a punitive place will always miss intention.
Yea, we need a historian to tell us how it went down so we can know who to hate! … jk jk… lol the obvious lesson is do not rush to judgement, especially on assumption. Heck, it might’ve even been a very select few genuine crooks that got the rest punished by team sports attitude that sadly persists to this day.
I’m so tired of these woke CEOs and their snowflake whining over misgendering their companies. There’s the name that a company is assigned at birth, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to change the way I’ve always called them (for my whole life and ALL of god-fearing Christian history) because some liberal snowflake CEO one-day wakes up and simply declares, “twitter is now X” ffs.
The facts of the birth incorporation certificate, DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS little pissant mUsK… GET OVER IT!
Oh, that's what that was about? I honestly just assumed Starry was some crap knock-off that the restaurant just happened to have that day. Not really sure what the motive would be or why they'd expect the reaction to rebranding a nearly 20yr old product would be any other assumption. I'm going to disagree with them. They should be glad I'm not calling them Sprite.
Yeah… I thought the same, that it was some knock-off company’s bootleg Sprite, wasn’t a very good idea, especially since the product packaging looks like Sprite’s
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.