HN user

jexah

68 karma
Posts1
Comments103
View on HN

I want to experience media in the format and order in which the creator of the media wants it to be watched. The episodic content that I watch, I watch because I have faith in the creators of it that the next one will be of the same calibre as the previous. Not faith in the publishers. 99% of the time, this is in the order or is released. There are exceptions, which is why we have the concept of creator-defined playlists. To present the content to the user in an order which is not defined by the creator is at the publisher's discretion, and the publisher should therefore take responsibility for presenting it that way.

WRT conflating aggregators and creators, any decision the publisher makes, they should take responsibility for, such as promoting some content and hiding others.

In what context?

Any episodic context, like 99 percent of the media we consume. TV show episodes happen in a specific order of events, movies are constructed of scenes in a specific order, community growth around a channel is built around common experiences already shared, even looking at history channels, if a story spans multiple videos requiring multiple media releases, when each video relies on information provided from another, the content creator would have to be daft to release them in the reverse, or worse, a random order, when everybody is waiting to find out what happens next.

From my perspective, it seems like the only videos that are viable outside of this context are long-form videos (1hr+) or viral trash.

Hate to break it to you, but nobody was saying you should pour the alcohol on the fire. They said to put the fire out and you happened to be holding alcohol so you decided to throw alcohol on it.

Nobody said that the hand licking was "Bad Behavior [and] Absolutely Must Stop At Any Cost". They looked at you like you didnt know how to teach your child how to be polite in public, and you chose that you must do whatever it takes to stop yourself appearing that way.

The fact that you were trying to solve a problem without knowing the cause was silly, and I'm genuinely happy for you that you've learned from that experience, but the worst part is that you attribute the blame to outside forces.

Sentences like "They made me make the problem worse by telling me to fix it" and "It's their fault I failed because I didn't know how to solve the problem and guessed" come to mind.

"It might result in worse things happening to my relationship to my child than him being mad at me about this one thing. So I tried to comply with this expectation that my child needed to stop and I needed to be the one to make that happen."

There is more shifting blame in this paragraph. Somewhere you missed the part where "to comply" is to achieve the outcome of your child no longer licking his hands, not to assault him.

Society views parents who hit their kids worse than parents whose kids lick their hands, so I have no idea where you got the idea of compliance being to hit your child.

It's nice that you learned one lesson, maybe you could learn something from how you wrote the article, and if you can remember, how you felt when you wrote it.

Came to the comments to post exactly this. +1 "I got banned but did nothing wrong" rant on the Internet. If OP reads this he should ammend or retract the statement to avoid wasting the time of others.

In the following, I assume either pay-per-impression, or pay-per-click with a limited pool size (ex. 500 views limit per day). In the former I assume the "cost" is monetary, in the latter I assume the "cost" is temporal.

Genuinely curious about this, what if somebody is posting an ad for hiring labourers (brick layers, etc.)? Do they pay the cost by also targeting women? What about targeting ads for hiring beauticians at females? Is that wrong? Should the company pay the cost to also advertise to men in the off-chance that they catch one of the very few male beauticians?

To me it makes sense that advertisers, regardless of what they are advertising (job, product, service, etc.) should be able to target the demographics that they believe will achieve the desired outcome. Obviously this has few exceptions such as targeting cigarettes, alcohol, etc. at minors.

Are there any good arguments against this?

Of note: The subject of this topic seems a bit biased, why not "Facebook is letting job advertisers target specific genders?"

What you are describing is a merged set of other named rights, such as Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association, etc. The US (as far as I am aware) is the only country in the world with the Right to Free Speech. Free being the keyword here, "unconstrained".

Free Speech doesn't mean having the right to say bad things about the government. It means having the right to say anything you want.

So if you manage to avoid being tortured or killed, then what you did wasn't a sacrifice and wasn't patriotic? Considering the definition of hero goes so far as saving somebody from a burning building and receives minor burns, I think it's rich to say that because that person didn't receive full body 3rd degree burns or die in the fire, that they're not a hero. They risked their life and did their best to avoid or mitigate the damage they caused themselves.

Are you saying that the rescuer who fails to save the person and dies in the fire is more of a hero because they screwed up, or chose to give up and be burned alive? What about the rescuer who saves the person and intentionally runs back into the burning building and dies to gain "hero points"?

Yeah, the case against Assange in Sweden was just to get him to go back so Sweden could extradite him to the US. That is something legitimate to run from. I believe it is foolish to maximise the amount of damage to one's self, for many reasons least of all that it hampers one's ability to achieve their goal.

I haven't followed any links posted in this thread, but some things I see often are: free for non-commercial use, timed commercial use usually in the region of 30 days, or rates based on reads and writes. The last one seems like a winner from what you've described as your situation.

Ultimately, I disagree. If we are using the assumption that information is power, and the purpose of spying is to protect national interests (even if that only means the interests of the government in power), then I'd prefer the US spying on me. They already are and have been for years. It makes me uncomfortable, but if the US stopped spying the Chinese sure as hell wouldn't, and so I can't rightly advocate for less spying from the US.

I call it a necessary evil.

You would be horrendously surprised if you knew what was going on in other western countries. You go on YouTube to find long form discussions between two (real) intellectuals on important topics and the vast vast majority of them are Americans. There is nobody fighting for western values anywhere else in the western world. Everybody is too scared.

America as it stands today, is the most free country in the world. It may sound grim, and that's because it is.

A few things, from a non-US resident.

Freedom isn't the right to do what you want. It's the right to be left to your own devices, within the law. America is the most successful meritocracy in the world. Freedom of endevour, if you will.

Second, equality don't mean everybody is equal. It means given any two people with the same qualifications, experience, work ethic, etc and same risk via statistical analysis, they should have equal opportunity.

Third (and I don't even why you're arguing about employment opportunities), employment is a contract between two people. If somebody can't find a job paying 20 dollars an hour for their service, they should have the right to negotiate a lower wage to justify their employment. A minimum wage of above 20 dollars simply makes that person unemployable. Talking about paid vacation, it's the same thing. If you're worth it then your employer will provide it. If you are not worth it, and it is a right, then too bad you don't get a job. Some US engineers I know get insane amounts of paid leave that I could only dream of (coming from a country with mandated vacation).

America along with China are two of the very few countries left where people get compensated what they're worth. China not so much because of rampant socially accepted bribing, connections, etc.