I call that trailer park logic:

They say: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!"

Then four years later, while still in a dead end job: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!"

Sometimes the best available move is physically escaping, just getting up and walking away and continuing until you find anything better than where you were at. For some weird reason, that move feels like giving up to people, until they actually do it and it works. This move is sometimes appropriate for jobs, relationships, addictions, violent circumstances, toxic social groups, politics, and so on.

If you've got next to nothing, then you have almost nothing to lose, and that can be a profound amount of freedom if it's seized. It's not always the right move, but sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Go find a better game.

It's also not unreasonable to believe that the two things are linked.

Why not call it woman logic? They are famous for strictly using long term planning and cold logic to plan their lives to the point they even joke about it.

You could've subbed in just about any nationality.

But you chose trailer park because the point was to pick a group of people that a bunch of other educated white collar people (I think the trailer park people would use the term "coastal elites" for this group, lol) like feeling better than, hence why the other groups wouldn't do.

If you wanted to make if harmless you could've chose any manner of public personality (politicians are gold mines for peddling short sighted stuff, plenty of examples to choose from) to name it after.

I started calling it that when I lived in the trailer park.

> If you wanted to make if harmless

It's already harmless. The people who live in trailer parks don't need your protection, and acknowledging that most of them don't want to be there isn't hurting anyone at all.

You're not acknowledging that they don't want to be there. You're assigning them a lack of long-term planning and ability to reason about how to achieve the best outcome for life. You're calling them "stupid" without using the word.

The comparison didn't include someone who chooses to take night classes at a junior college with hopes of transferring credits to another institution for an accredited degree, for example. No, they're too hopeless to find a third way. Having a background living in a trailer park in no way absolves you of dumping on people who still do in that comment.

I realize that I'm being hyperbolic to make a point and that life isn't simple when living in poverty. But I've been destitute as well, and I don't blame people who have trouble overcoming the same.

I told you what I meant. You're trying to tell me that it's not what I meant. As the the guy who said it i can tell you that you are wrong about my intent.

> You're calling them "stupid" without using the word.

I'm willing to own that it's Blunt language that might hurt feelings if you really want it to, but that wasn't the intent. I refuse to walk on eggshells because someone somewhere in the world might find some meaning i never intended if they really look for it.

As a human being sometimes I can't accurately communicate my full intent to everyone. However, as a normal human being you also have he obligation to try to see the best version of others peoples words before assuming the worst version.

Maybe we both failed a little here.

This is more like: "Why implement it? That won't be seen for five years and I need a promotion now!"

Annual revenue is a few dozen billions.

So what's the problem, here?

Minimizing developer pain is not a business objective.

This way they could keep an old html/css/js implementation running alongside the upgraded one.

It's not proprietary

What new features?

The only "new features" Youtube implements is shoving shorts down your throat and taking five seconds to show video times on thumbnails despite the fact that the data is already there.

There's nothing Youtube requires from "new features" that can't be implemented in a browser tech from 15 years ago.

Also, Youtube the site doesn't have to deal with Cobalt-the-TV-app just like it doesn't have to deal with YouTube-the-mobile-app

Video encodings themselves are separate the client always selects the most favorable one from the available set (e. G., vp9 over av1 when hw decode for av1 is not present)

Or why they are hamstrung by Cobalt at all, since it's by definition a TV app that is not expected to implement all the features of a desktop or a mobile app [1]

Instead, you just go for a personal attack.

So, who's insufferable here?

[1] BTW I literally work on one such app, and the number of features we cannot implement on such a constrained platform as a TV is now probably in the hundreds. Doesn't affect the site, or the desktop app, or the mobile apps.

Edit. BTW, if you think that ditching Cobalt (whose features Google literally directly controls) in favor of browsers running on TVs or gaming consoles will somehow give you great modern browsers with standards support, you know even less than nothing (if it's at all possible).

E.g. we still don't use CSS variables because browsers on a significant portion of TVs that are still in use don't support them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But YouTube is also a very complex app. Yes it "just" exists to play videos, but the app is so much more than a video player. Browsing, searching, comments, chat, playlists, YT Live, subscriptions, profiles, ratings... there's a lot there.

Perhaps they could start with just cutting down their bloated 100x-duplicated 4MB CSS file?

However, it's clear that the devs are mainly composed of trendchasing sheeple who have drunk the Goog-Aid and are addicted to newness and reinventing wheels to make them square... because they have to justify their existence.

YouTube was perfectly usable 15 years ago, on the machines and software of the time.

I'll stop at the imminent conclusion that having Cobalt is a good thing for various reasons.

It's a site that shows a bunch of text, a few images, and then loads and plays video. What features does it need on a TV that it's so hard to implement?

Edit: I know which ones, and they have very little to do with Cobalt, but with the fact that even high end TVs are often worse than a Raspberry Pi, and can stick around for a decade. But this is nothing ditching Cobalt would fix.

E.g. you can't run 4k video on some models that can technically show it because there's not enough CPU and RAM to run the browser, the video, the decoder, and the DRM at the same time, the video stutters

Looks like stable API like that is a perfect candidate for usage in an open source app that replaces the official one.