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

321–330 of 523 posts

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#321

Post by lasc4r »

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…

My dad uses it to get fascist/right-wing propaganda for about 4 hours every night. All nicely monetized for any grifter willing to debase themselves for a potential fortune. Truly novel, but not well thought through or done with any care at all besides profits which is par for the course in silicon valley.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#322

Post by dotnet00 »

tomohelix wrote: post #58
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.

Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. People live and die. It is inevitable. To the grieving family, I can understand why refraining from insulting the dearly departed is necessary. They are grieving and can be irrational. No need to make things worse for them. But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our de…

Agreed, I don't get it either. I also wonder how many people saying this sort of thing expressed the same sentiment when someone they had a strong dislike of passed or had a close brush with death.

We've had many such incidents over the recent years and at least in my anecdotal observations, people do not consistently apply this.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#323

Post by dotnet00 »

sigmar wrote: post #209
tomohelix wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. People live and die. It is inevitable. To the grieving family, I can understand why refraining from insulting the dearly departed is necessary. They are grieving and can be irrational. No need to make things worse for them. But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our de…

>But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it. unless you have a magical way to make your comment here invisible to her family and friends, posting it to the internet is not keeping the comment exclusively "between unrelated people." Many of thos…

There's an implied "reasonable chance" in there.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#324

Post by philwelch »

pavlov wrote: post #131
briandear wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government-coordinated censorship during Covid. That’s my negative opinion. Covid vax concerns were allowed during the last months of the Trump administration, but it suddenly became censored after Biden was elected.

The timeline of the election coincides with the development of the vaccines. Moderna reported positive phase 3 trial results in November 2020. FDA’s review was completed in December and an emergency authorization was granted. The full trial results were published in medical journals a few months later, around the same time as Biden entered office. So maybe it had nothing to do with Trump/Biden and simply was a reacti…

That’s not a coincidence—they deliberately delayed reporting the trial results until after the election because they were worried that good news would help Trump.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#326

Post by ithkuil »

namaria wrote: post #261
ithkuil wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And also a complete lack of misunderstanding of profit

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#327

Post by pavlov »

philwelch wrote: post #324
pavlov wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The timeline of the election coincides with the development of the vaccines. Moderna reported positive phase 3 trial results in November 2020. FDA’s review was completed in December and an emergency authorization was granted. The full trial results were published in medical journals a few months later, around the same time as Biden entered office. So maybe it had nothing to do with Trump/Biden and simply was a reacti…

That’s not a coincidence—they deliberately delayed reporting the trial results until after the election because they were worried that good news would help Trump.

Haven’t heard this conspiracy theory before.

So which is it: 1) The mRNA vaccine was rushed out without sufficient clinical trials; 2) The results from the clinical trials were delayed to hurt Trump.

You can’t have both you know. So far the far-right argument has been entirely based on scenario 1, but it’s certainly interesting to know that scenario 2 also exists for some people.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#328

Post by dotnet00 »

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…

YouTube has very much been resting on its laurels, they were innovative 20 years ago when they started. For the past decade or so they have mostly just rested on their laurels allowing the auto-moderation to rampage and destroy people's livelihoods.

They've been way behind on adding standard features that their competitors see lots of benefit from. For example, YouTube was years late to the 'channel memberships' game despite the popularity of Twitch and Patreon. YouTube still lacks many of the popular streaming features from Twitch, and only relatively recently got around to adding stuff like polls. I can't think of any feature in the past decade that was a YouTube innovation rather than an innovation from competitors that was copied over years later.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#329

Post by mynameisvlad »

vsuperpower2021 wrote: post #113
yyyfb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things can be true. Money does buy comfort and care. Also, it does not make one immortal. We can choose what we take away from events. I could choose to feel unlucky that I haven't made as much money as someone else, and I would be justified in it, because being rich absolutely makes a difference. I just choose to feel lucky to be alive instead, and I'm just as justified. You are free to choose your own perspecti…

In general if you want people to take you seriously, don't make statements like "Two things can be true." It reeks of reddit condescension where they can't make a simple statement without implying the other party is stupid enough to think that only one thing can ever be true at once.

I mean, considering that people harped on about one specific thing being more true than the other, it certainly seems like people think that only one thing (being rich) can ever be true at once.

Stupidity is entirely your implication, but people generally like to see things in binary. It’s far easier than acknowledging that most things live on a spectrum.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#330

Post by nextlevelwizard »

rajup wrote: post #234
sytelus wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth you want 10X longer video with same information content as the shorter video?

Why on earth would you watch a 1.5 hour movie when you can watch a 2 min TikTok that explains the entire story? In a world full of distractions I for one love the more slow-paced videos than “shorts” churned out by content mills designed to feed the modern day digital ADHD…

Few years ago “long burn” story telling was hot and we are still feeling the effects. Take any show on Netflix and it will be 8 45min episodes from which first 3 are absolutely garbage filler.

Youtube learned the wrong lesson and started to optimize the algorithm for retention and length. It is annoying to click for a review of some product that looks like a lengthy one with probably tests and what not only to see painfully slow unboxing and a wikipedia read of the history of the product and company and then sponsor read and then they turn on the device for a minute and give arbitrary score.

Exact same info could have been communicated in 30seconds, but then they wouldn’t get sponsor money and mid video ad roll

Post reply on HN