431–440 of 444 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that Google owns the backbone that Youtube videos transit on for free. By leasing that dark fiber, they get peering agreements that effectively makes their ability to send bytes to the internet free. No one else has that ability.
Yes they do; you could buy it yourself if you wanted to. Nobody else having the scale or cash & willingness to do so is not the same thing as being unable to.
The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving for too long. Let's hope YouTube does better in the future. However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples: - ads are required for big channels (false) - demonetization…
The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content as some people believe.
Wouldn't it help if Discussion boards had a logician magician who moderates posts? Someone who's sole purpose is to point out logical fallacies- like whether a post adds value to the conversation. Is it objective or opinionated? Is the post related to the discussion? If not, does the post expand upon the discussion in a way that's relevant or did the writer lack critical thinking? How?
My post is slightly off-topic considering the original, however, I'm relating to user @ariwilson about this discussion's lack of critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which is related.
I'm adding to the discussion similar to ariwilson but not adding new examples since ariwilson covered that. I'm not just complaining that people are "Stoopid and shouldn't be allowed to post of they're not helping everyone so we should ban them"! hehe- because that would be my ignorant opinion based on personal belief void of fact checking or research. Plus, banning people, places or things is never a good idea! Banning speech and freedom of thought are definitely terrible ideas! ;)
It's late a here and I'm rambling, sorry. But, you get the idea...a mod mage with a symbol map depicting the fallacys within each post in an easy-to-understand way. Wouldn't it be nice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a video about this in January, before YouTube strongarmed Blender. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ksbTTXHw8 I am pretty dismayed to be this right. I didn't think YT would be nearly this aggressive in service of the ideas I outlined. Basically, they take a cut off that activity. In some cases they could take most of or all the money, which is a clear win for them, but even when they pay out they're earning r…
I watched your video and you made some great points. As an aside, I have to wonder if you've thought through your desire to serve your website over HTTP instead of over HTTPS. You noted that you use ad blocking software because ad networks are a common route by which malware propagates. HTTP websites comprise another salient target for malware. If I am at a coffee shop with a compromised wifi router and I load your H…
I could well be wrong. I'm hoping for the reasons you mention that some benevolent hacker people work out how to bring this to people for free and make it simple to do.
I would love to buy a preinstalled peertube instance on a Raspberry Pi and plug it in somewhere around the house.
From https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/blob/develop/support/... > Please don't install PeerTube for production on a small device behind a low bandwidth connection (example: a Raspberry PI behind your ADSL link) because it could slow down the fediverse.
Would this be because of fear of establishing a precedence where if a lot of people did that you'd have a situation of a lot of leechers but few seeders.
If thats the case, its the same situation where you have a lot of users watching videos on a server. The server can limit membership to protect itself I suppose but a personal instance would be better then a user that just watches but does not contribute.
I suppose somebody could make a RPI client that becomes a member to one or more instances and just downloads. Just let the servers protect themselves by limiting use here and there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they do; you could buy it yourself if you wanted to. Nobody else having the scale or cash & willingness to do so is not the same thing as being unable to.
If I had a lever long enough, I could move the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've been pissing off their content creators for quiet a while now w/ completely arbitrary, machine-driven demonitization. Many of these creators are far beyond the "kid in a basement" category; they're celebs, have employees, and make $$$. It's crazy and really sad how YouTube bloomed into this awesome, independent alternative to all the crap coming out of hollywood and cable TV, but now they've decided to kneeca…
A whole of that can be traced back to leadership change at YT. Since S.W. took over, the culture at YT has changed profoundly, and most of the blunders in the last few years (this is just one in a long series) can be traced back to the culture change she fostered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree. Consider that perhaps you can't serve videos online and expect it to be entirely free. Can you run your compute for free? No. Can you host your database for free? No. Why would serving videos be any different? (Let's ignore limited free tiers for this argument). The more popular the content, the cheaper per unit it'll be to serve (based on bandwidth/transit costs and how they scale, and that you mos…
Pure p2p networks scale by O(log n). This means if the popularity of your video scales with n then your infrastructure just scales with log(n). The idea is that leechers become seeders. So with every new layer of distribution the coverage increases exponentially.
The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving for too long. Let's hope YouTube does better in the future. However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples: - ads are required for big channels (false) - demonetization…
I agree @ariwilson, I don't know what needs to be done about this lack of critical thinking. Most discussions here and across the 'net' are filled with unintelligible chatter, so it's no wonder that people use this conversation to spread every misconception they've ever heard about YouTube. The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good replacement for Twitter. Where "good" means: - Decentralised. Anyone can run their own instance, but instances are federated so everyone on any instance can see your toots (Mastodon's tweets). So if you're paranoid about privacy or hate Nazi bootboys, you can run your own instance with complete control. - A nice progression of feeds from only people you follow; to all toots of your instance; to toots from all…
> Polite discourse Everything is polite at first, until it gets big. This has been true of all social media platforms in history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its not monetized, then YouTube has no way to make money off the views; no way to recoup the costs associated with hosting those videos. History, morality, and good will aside, its in their financial best interest to not allow videos which are not monetized.
Sure, but YouTube gives the option to not monetize your videos. You can't give your users and option and then be upset when some users pick that option. If people picking that option is causing problems for your business, you take that option away.