HN user
Even if I never used DDG search it would still be valuable to use DDG with bangs for wikipedia, google, youtube, etc.
I love this about ddg. I watch to a lot of YouTube videos, and being able to just type “!yt search terms” is just too useful.
To piggyback this a bit: I highly recommend YouTuber Shaun’s videos on this topic
[Stefan Molyneux’s Fall of Rome - A Response] (https://youtu.be/BHW3Y_p2llo)
[Immigration and the Fall of Rome] (https://youtu.be/WqCCx4wj79o)
While I’ll agree he never uses the phrase “arms race”, he does say this:
The growth of advertising is fueled by the enormous waste it creates. In any somewhat saturated market - which, today, is most of them - any effort you spent on advertising serves primarily to counteract the combined advertising efforts of your competitors.
Wisconsin is in the US so US laws and regulations are what apply. Moreover it seems Europe also has similar legislation/protections for people with disabilities. This is equality. No bending necessary.
Omg dude read about the ADA. You seem to have a deep misunderstand of things in the U.S.
C0nc0rdance has a pretty good video about this: https://youtu.be/dDA0skyptuo
I never really thought about the possible harm, but the above video is great. It’s originally from a Sam Harris essay.
I didn’t expect to agree with this post. Glad I took the time to read it, as he has a very good point.
Did we read the same article?
You’re implying the article casts doubt on DHA supplement bioavailability. It doesn’t. It casts doubt on any notion some vegans/vegetarians may have that simply eating seaweed in their diet is enough, because there’s doubt on its bioavailability in that form (she even points to fiber as possibly being part of the problem).
lmao that’s was my reaction. I’ve been taking DHA supplements and eating a plant-based diet for over a decade. I thought the article might expose some skeezy marketing ploys on the part of BigVitamin, that I had been buying into all along, but alas.
Wow. TIL. Thanks for this comment even though people are downvoting you into oblivion.
Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay[2][12][13][14][15] The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, ... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group. The essay, written in the first person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).[17]
(mine)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
(wiki's)
[2] Young, Michael (1958). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870-2033: An essay on education and inequality. London: Thames & Hudson.
[12] Young, Michael (29 June 2001). "Down with meritocracy: The man who coined the word four decades ago wishes Tony Blair would stop using it". The Guardian. London.
[13] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7.
[14] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7.
[15] Best, Shaun (2005). Understanding Social Divisions. London: Sage. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7619-4296-2.
[17] Young, Michael (1958). p. 11.
I thought that the current consensus was that races don't really exist.
Races do not exist biologically[0][1], but they do 'exist' as a social construct[2][3][4]. And I second your second sentence :)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKrGkgeww4&index=4&list=PLy...
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we...
[4] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/20...
I'm using uMatrix, so I didn't even notice. At least it's relatively easy to get around the modal and read the interview?
Your first 3 links are all referencing the same University of Minnesota study. Your last link seems to be based on the writer’s observations (I did not find it linking or mentioning any study). I’m not even disagreeing with the fact that some emojis can be misunderstood (especially cross-culturally and when they are displayed very differently on devices) but you can’t just link 3 news stories covering the same study as if you’ve found a mountain of evidence to support your claims.
I think Nixon and Reagan’s push for “tough on crime” policy (policy that went on to be pushed further by HW Bush, Clinton, and W Bush)also played a large role. But it definitely got worse after 9/11.
This so much! As I've been watching people freak out over FB, I've been wondering - if people didn't even bother to read the pop-up, bulleted lists of information they were sharing with the apps they were connecting to FB, then how are they gonna feel about the similar, bulleted lists of information they're sharing with browser extensions? I mean, I assume they don't read those either.
[for the record, I know there are other issues w/ FB, but A LOT of the fallout seems to be related to the apps users were connecting to their profiles.]
emails you're receiving in Gmail
I'm sorry but if you care about privacy, you shouldn't be using Gmail.
No.
Why is this being down-voted? It's the truth.
All of my comments have been about the shooter's relationship to YouTube as a company, so that's why I brought up employment status. I was literally replying to the comparison to "someone getting fired from their job".
I'm not trying to make a dig at anyone - I'm describing reality and it's upsetting a lot of people who feel entitled to ad revenue. I honestly hope YouTube just does away with their partner program altogether.
As for YouTube careers - I couldn't agree more that many creators are full-time and put their time and energy into making content. The Slo Mo Guys, VSauce, etc are all making money outside of Adsense. They've done what Philip Defranco often tells people to do - diversify where you're getting your money from.
My whole point is that being a YouTube creator or a blogger is a perfectly fine profession - but that requires work to monetize your product and/or direct support from your subscribers/readers.
I am a huge proponent of users in general creating and participating in services that truly meet our needs and wants rather than going all in and hitching ourselves to a multinational corporation that has advertisers and board members to please.
I honestly think we're on the same side of this argument. I just don't think the answer is in expecting YouTube to take care of us.
I know a lot of people want to nationalize YouTube/Google, but unless/until that happens (and unless/until their IP becomes free & open source), we cannot count on them.
I didn't call them beggars - I was only meaning to call out the comparison to employees. Sorry for the confusion. I've edited the original comment.
Ah - I just saw this. Sorry I totally copied your comparison without meaning to. Thanks for getting what I meant despite my poor analogy.
Lyft drivers are independent contractors. In my opinion they (and Favor deliverers, etc.) should be categorized as employees instead and should receive benefits. Uploading content to YouTube is not the same thing. I'm not meaning to say anyone's a beggar. But YouTubers just don't have an employer-employee relationship with YouTube. That's just a fact. This woman was not a YouTube employee, the people she targeted were.
Yes we understand that - but these were her options: continue hosting on YouTube, host on another site/hosting service (a lot of new anti-YouTubes are popping up), or self-host. She had a choice in this. YouTube being the most popular of them all doesn't mean she has to host her videos there.
Advertising intermixed with content is also the only type of advertising YouTubers actually have control of. It may be annoying or inconvenient but it's a hell of a lot better than them complaining about the site that hosts their content not doing the work for them.
I wonder the same thing sometimes. I remember being happy when they lowered the bar to entry to the Partnership Program. Now I think that was a huge mistake and they should think of phasing it out completely. Too many people have misunderstood where the money comes from and whether or not they're employed by YouTube (they're not).
That would suck for many people, but would totally be in their right. Again - how are people confused about this. If AWS drops you as a customer use an alternative. Moreover, these people's videos are still hosted on YouTube's servers.
It's not similar to being fired. [REDACTED: It's similar to a store owner allowing you to panhandle outside their business, and then later telling you you can't panhandle there anymore (but loiter all you want!).] It is not reasonable for adults to look at internet ad revenue as a reliable source of income. It's unfortunate if/when they fall on hard times because they made the mistake of relying on something so volatile. I really wish people this confused on the issue would google (heh) AdWords certification study guide and "Google Penguin"/"Google Panda"/"Google Hummingbird"/etc.
EDIT: many people are upset by the panhandling comparison. I just meant that as a juxtaposition to those saying "it's like being fired". It was meant as an analogy - no intent to insult anyone (YouTubers and beggars alike). A better analogy would be a musician who was paid to perform in a bar, and the bar owner tells them "you can still play here all you want, but we're no longer going to pay you." (mind you - they are not saying "you have to continue playing here and do it for free")
It’s not the media’s fault. If you’re going to blame anyone - blame the advertisers. They are the ones with the money everyone (YouTube and YouTubers alike) is trying to get their hands on. Unfortunately they are the ones who hold the cards at the end of the day when it comes to their money.
“They demonetized a ton of legitimate YouTube channels in a rush to appease their advertisers.”
It’s almost as if the money those channels felt entitled to came from advertisers. /s
I’ve been getting increasingly more annoyed by the entitlement some YouTube creators have shown towards Adsense dollars. And I’m perplexed at some of the comments on this story (“YouTube was her main source of income”). Yeah, she hedged her bet and put all her content on a platform she didn’t own or control, then thought it’d be a good idea to be financially dependent on them facilitating ad deals for her. Many of ya favorite youtubers complain about demonetization - I get it sucks and cuts out cashflow they were expecting but they’re not entitled to money from advertisers. This is like me demanding Facebook pay me for allowing me to put up a profile and running ads in my friends’ newsfeeds. That’s not how the real world works, kiddo. I think way back when YouTube opened up their “partner” program - that was their big mistake. It allowed far too many people to start viewing Adsense $ as earned income.