Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Susan Wojcicki has died

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 523 posts

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#261

Post by namaria »

ithkuil wrote: post #245
jojobas wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cured customer is a lost customer. Indefinite remission while taking a daily dose is plausible, or maybe $2.5M per head as Zolgensma.

How many people simply wouldn't be able to afford that and thus die? Wouldn't it be better to have them cured and live longer and just spend their money on curing other illnesses we're all going to have anyway? There is something about this cynic explanation that just doesn't sound right to me

Anyone who claims that there's a 'cure for cancer' somewhere that some company is sitting on for profit betrays their complete lack of understanding of oncology.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#262

Post by svnt »

cpncrunch wrote: post #252
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably not her real schedule. It looks like clickbait and was probably invented by the author. (Who might be our prolific friend Chat-GPT.) Besides 10:00pm to 5:30am is 7.5 hours, which is either optimal or (arguably) too much. Lastly, there's no clear evidence tying sleep duration to cancer incidence. See, e.g.: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-...

She starts exercising at 530 and goes to bed at 10. Im assuming she wakes up 30 mins before, and it takes her an hour to get to sleep.

They weren’t arguing the specific times, but the article itself reads as if AI generated and not as a real report of someone’s schedule, by someone who would know that person’s schedule.

The follow-on conclusion from that is that the times are highly suspect.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#263

Post by Mistletoe »

cpncrunch wrote: post #128
troll_v_bridge wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t really say it does or doesn’t. Research shows stress can be a contributor though. https://med.stanford.edu/survivingcancer/cancer-and-stress/s... .

Main factors are sleep, sunlight, diet and exercise as well as stress. You can see her schedule here: https://press.farm/susan-wojcickis-daily-routine-youtubes-ce... Sleep about 6hr, which isnt ideal. Not much chance to get sunlight which significantly reduces cancer incidence. Not much relaxing time. The question becomes, is the work worth it?

I’ve tried to google with no success but is it known if she smoked or ever did? Or is she part of the unlucky cohort (~12.5%) of non-smokers that get lung cancer?

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#264

Post by Jensson »

specialist wrote: post #256
Aunche wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube doesn't print money out of thin air. They make money by making advertisers happy, and advertisers will only buy ads if their customers are happy. This isn't anything new either. Creatives have always been beholden to censorship boards in traditional media too, which are typically much stricter. The fact that you so many YouTubers make money from criticizing YouTube is evidence of how much YouTubers don't unde…

Are their advertisers happy?

They continue to pay for ads, so yeah for now. That is the kind of "happiness" companies care about.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#265

Post by hungie »

daveed wrote: post #49

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

Why? If a person has done measurable harm to you, and your community, why is it not acceptable to say, "this person's legacy was one of harm. They chose to hurt vulnerable people"?

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#266

Post by [deleted] »

lchengify wrote: post #73

Was shocked to hear this news. I worked for Google years ago but I was in the NYC office, so we didn't run into the YouTube folks much. Opinions about YouTube may be mixed here on HN, but it is objectively one of the most successful businesses in tech or media to emerge in the past 15 years. If it weren't buried inside Alphabet, Youtube would be worth on the order of $400 billion, more than Disney and Comcast combine…

[deleted]

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#267

Post by cmrdporcupine »

paxys wrote: post #199

People of course associate her with YouTube, but Susan Wojcicki has had an overall fascinating career. Page and Brin started Google in her garage. She was employee #16 at the company. She was behind the Google logo, Google Doodles, Image Search, AdSense, then all of advertising, and ultimately YouTube. Safe to say Google would not be where it is today without her role. RIP.

Yeah it's interesting to see the press and others really pushing on the YouTube thing when it is AdSense that made Google what it was and is still today. An advertising revenue money machine. And it was in many ways her baby.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#268

Post by lokar »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #226
darby_nine wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe the above poster is referencing the music product, but that's just a guess.

No, it was the movie channel. I tried it out, because YT Premium had a particular show I wanted to see. The biggest issue that I had, was that I couldn't find shows that I wanted to see. YT kept shoving a bunch of stuff into the UI that I wasn't interested in. All my searches were littered with results that were not relevant to me. I suspect they were paid. The Apple App Store has the same problem. It's infuriating.…

Do you mean YouTube tv?

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#269

Post by igetspam »

paxys wrote: post #199

People of course associate her with YouTube, but Susan Wojcicki has had an overall fascinating career. Page and Brin started Google in her garage. She was employee #16 at the company. She was behind the Google logo, Google Doodles, Image Search, AdSense, then all of advertising, and ultimately YouTube. Safe to say Google would not be where it is today without her role. RIP.

I personally wouldn't be where I am without her. Google wasn't my first job but it was the first one that mattered and I was there pretty early (2004). The founding team set Google up for success. The tech was obviously key but you can still ruin good tech by running a bad business. She earned her success, multiple times and I have a deep appreciation for what she did and what she was part of. It's a sad day, for sure.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#270

Post by coffeebeqn »

ghaff wrote: post #207
lchengify wrote: post #73

Was shocked to hear this news. I worked for Google years ago but I was in the NYC office, so we didn't run into the YouTube folks much. Opinions about YouTube may be mixed here on HN, but it is objectively one of the most successful businesses in tech or media to emerge in the past 15 years. If it weren't buried inside Alphabet, Youtube would be worth on the order of $400 billion, more than Disney and Comcast combine…

To a fairly casual observer like myself, YouTube early on looked like mostly a platform for massive video copyright infringement--especially before home video became so relatively cheap and easy. I don't use it nearly as much as some here but it definitely transformed into something much different for the most part and managed to make it work as a business (at least as part of Google).

Yeah I remember watching Seinfeld and full seasons of cartoons on early YouTube. People basically just uploaded their whole pirated video collections there
Post reply on HN