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

511–520 of 523 posts

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#511

Post by askafriend »

talldayo wrote: post #491
askafriend wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reasons are: it's a great product, it's very convenient, it's the service I watch the most content on, part of the money goes to creators and I'm not broke so I can afford it.

Then don't come whining to me when YouTube gets worse on your dime.

It's been probably the single most valuable content resource in my life.

I owe so much to YouTube. The price I pay is small for what I get in return and I only see the service getting better over the years.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. But I hope you find this perspective useful in seeing how other people view it.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#512

Post by hnburnsy »

mrkramer wrote: post #503
hnburnsy wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think they want us to transition to Premium, they like that on smarttv platforms they can sell unskippable ads that are similar to cable/broadcast TV

YouTube wants you to transition to Premium because it is more profitable for them; they earn less with selling ads on the CPM and the CPC basis than they get from Premium. And they are pretty intrusive about it e.g. when you watch videos and you exit the YouTube app and shortly after that come back, pop-up says: "Wish videos kept playing when you closed the app?", "Get background play with YouTube Premium". Also when…

Not going to say you are wrong (+1), but look at the streamers who now overcharge for an ad-free version of their services. Part of that is to get scale for the ad-supported tiers.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#513

Post by PawgerZ »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #483
ndriscoll wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology is basically there for signage to track who looks at it (maybe not billboards, but that's a resolution thing). In any case, why would I care about how people who are trying to scam me set up their business deals? If I don't run their script, they didn't "lose" anything. Their malware was never allowed to run on my machines in the first place. They failed to steal something from me.

Perhaps. It'd fall under another cost benefits analysis. I imagine it's not worth the cost. Software scales elegantly, unlike hardware, so it's another area where the metaphor breaks apart. >why would I care about how people who are trying to scam me set up their business deals? 1. Because you are spending much of your energy and time getting around them. Because by silent consensus people would rather consume ads th…

I love that 1 and 2 contradict each other

1. Because you are spending much of your energy and time getting around them.

2. People get so pompous as if they are combatting the behemoth by taking 10 seconds to download a program.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#514

Post by theshackleford »

Blot2882 wrote: post #309
tsimionescu wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It never got around to incentivize creators to produce concise content and to this day creators keep producing massive 30 min diatribe that could have been done in 3 mins. Why on Earth would you want shorter videos? The best thing about YouTube is that it's one of the only places you can find quality medium-to-long-form content.

Maybe not what the commenter was saying, but there is a difference between great multi-hour essays and pointless rants stretching out their length to meet a minimum ad requirement. I like watching a lot of multi hour videos, but you can tell the difference between one with substance and one repeating the same thing over and over so they can "clock out." That's all due to changes by YouTube to reward length and freque…

> The difference is their search bar still works

Search is literally one of the things YouTube is poorer at than ever and it blows my mind. I get a handful of results that might be relevant and then it’s just pages and pages of completely unrelated content that has nothing to do remotely with my search.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#515

Post by theshackleford »

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.

Why would you assume an hour? That’s considered to be quite a long sleep latency. Your average individual is at like between 10-20 minutes.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#516

Post by least »

msadirna wrote: post #510
least wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was luck and from then on the value is being provided by the people who upload content there. Content means absolutely fuck all if it can't reach its audience. Youtube hosts, encodes, streams, distributes, and circulates the content and has recommendation algorithms to increase the productivity of every public video published on the platform. It was lucky that it was a first mover and gained the momentum that it…

> Content means absolutely fuck all if it can't reach its audience Obviously no, or YouTube wouldn't be where it is today... > Youtube hosts, encodes, streams, distributes, and circulates the content and has recommendation algorithms to increase the productivity of every public video published on the platform Nothing of this is in any way special. Nobody would care if they wouldn't already have their quasi monopoly.…

> Obviously no, or YouTube wouldn't be where it is today...

Youtube is where it is today because the content on it reached its audience.

> Nothing of this is in any way special. Nobody would care if they wouldn't already have their quasi monopoly. The algorithm is a topic for itself. Enforcing hate, misinformation, etc. but in the end always working in such a way as to maximize YT profits and not recommend useful content to the user. What are you trying to sell here? The way the algorithm got terrible is a meme by ow. What is it even supposed to justify?

I notice sometimes if I watch a video outside of what is normal for me on Youtube, I'll see more videos on that topic. If I stop watching them, they go away. If you are consistently seeing videos of hate or misinformation, that is because you're engaging with those videos.

The reason the algorithm is important is because it is how you deliver videos to users. Several of the topics that I watch are fairly niche, so I do end up receiving recommendations for videos of creators with very low sub counts and view counts. I would never have found these videos without the recommendation algorithm.

It's not perfect, but it's simply incorrect that it doesn't recommend useful content to the user. It is optimized to maximize engagement and it does that by recommending videos that it thinks the user wants to and will watch to completion. That can be at odds with user's interests, but I'd say typically it's working how it should.

There's another can of worms of rabbit holes and echo chambers, but that seems to be an internet issue and more broadly a people issue, not solely a Youtube issue. How Youtube should handle this is another deep and nuanced issue.

> If there would be even one competitor out there with the same amount of luck and YT would work exactly as it does now while the other would actually care about their content providers, YT would go broke.

Same amount of luck, how? Be there at the same time? because Youtube did have competitors like Google Videos and Vimeo and it was the one that won out.

It's obvious that if someone had a better product in every way including luck and youtube didn't change anything that youtube would die out.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#517

Post by anticensor »

takinola wrote: post #475
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.

Other than cynicism, what is the basis for this argument? The economic and social interests of the pharmaceutical companies are to find a cure. If a company came up with a single dose pill that cures colon cancer, they could charge up to the cost of a full course of chemo for that pill and insurance companies would line up to cover it. Go see what has happened with Hep-C and DAAs. Also, the industry and brand cred th…

But that profit margin would only exist initially. The cure would be much much cheaper than the ongoing treatment once the research pays off, making future margins for smaller yet simultaneously encourage ongoing research to discover a cure to the next disease.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#518

Post by jojobas »

takinola wrote: post #475
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.

Other than cynicism, what is the basis for this argument? The economic and social interests of the pharmaceutical companies are to find a cure. If a company came up with a single dose pill that cures colon cancer, they could charge up to the cost of a full course of chemo for that pill and insurance companies would line up to cover it. Go see what has happened with Hep-C and DAAs. Also, the industry and brand cred th…

So, Zolgensma is cheap?

Their argument is just that: 'The reason Zolgensma is so expensive is because that is the price Novartis has decided it is worth because it “dramatically transforms the lives of families affected by this devastating disease”'.

Basically it's "isn't you child's live worth 2.5 million?"

If someone found a one-shot no-side effects cure for a particular type of cancer there's no way they'd price it the same as the full course of chemo, they'd price it at "how much would you pay to be alive again". Insurance companies don't pay shit, their customers do.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#519

Post by bobdvb »

mrkramer wrote: post #503
hnburnsy wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think they want us to transition to Premium, they like that on smarttv platforms they can sell unskippable ads that are similar to cable/broadcast TV

YouTube wants you to transition to Premium because it is more profitable for them; they earn less with selling ads on the CPM and the CPC basis than they get from Premium. And they are pretty intrusive about it e.g. when you watch videos and you exit the YouTube app and shortly after that come back, pop-up says: "Wish videos kept playing when you closed the app?", "Get background play with YouTube Premium". Also when…

I've heard that Premium viewers account for a better income for content creators in comparison to ad-supported viewers. That's enough for me to be happy to pay.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#520

Post by bobdvb »

bushbaba wrote: post #257
newshackr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google also invests many billions of dollars to build their internet network and parts of the public Internet so it is hardly free

Eh close to free. This is the Google edge nodes in ISPs. But Google isn’t the only one with such an arrangement. Akamai, Netflix and a few others have same cost structure for in isp nodes.

There's a big stand-off between ISPs and CDNs over payments. Some ISPs insist they want payments to peer and others agree that it's mutually beneficial, but even where the ISPs stamp their feet, they rarely win the argument. Netflix started publishing rankings which showed which ISPs were good and which weren't, which drives them to improve. If content providers start saying to customers that they should change their ISP, then the ISP is going to hurt, so they might as well peer on a neutral basis.

Some ISPs have been lobbying governments and the EU to ask them to tax the "significant traffic generators" based on the traffic volumes and then use that to pay for the telco infrastructure. But that's an argument I am not convinced by, I think the ISPs will take the money, just reduce their own investments and make more profit.

I think the CDNs (including Google) need credit for the infrastructure they build.

Post reply on HN