imtyler

In my experience if you don't watch a category of videos and select 'not interested' they will stop being recommended. I had to do this with 'animal rescue' videos, which are sometimes created by individuals who purposefully put animals in danger for clicks.

Electromagnetic locks are better suited for gateways that are open by default. I can't imagine why someone would create a vault dependent on electricity.

That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of crimes that would go easier with no power. Perhaps taking down cameras.

>"The only way to attempt to improve the situation is show respect and hope it's eventually reciprocated."

With who? I don't have a neighbor, I have an endless string of rotating strangers. I understand that bad neighbors have always existed, but that's not what's happening in my specific situation.

Anyone and everyone has potential access to the house 30 feet or so from which I sleep. Anyone and everyone at any time. It's a big change.

My nextdoor neighbor sold their house last year and now it's an Airbnb. Despite the fact that I live in a house in a normal residential neighborhood, I'm now forced to live next to a hotel. And I have no say in the matter. Super frustrating.

I've read people talking about how Airbnb screwed the host or the guest. But few people talk about how it screws the neighbors.

I understand what's you're saying, that any digital scarcity is by design and therefore artificial.

But damn I wish my Steam library had a resale value.

>"They're yours..."

Yes and no. There's an important distinction between _having_ something and _owning_ something. You can have possession of figures carved from contraband elephant ivory. But if anyone who was inclined to care about such things decided to take action, a court could compel you to destroy it. Same thing with any illegal item.

But these are all "ifs and buts." Hence why it's a matter of principle and not practice. At the end of the day, most people are fine with "buying" a book that they don't own as evidenced by the sales.

In this scenario I think the biggest issue with losing an account is the ability to aquire future purchases. But like I said, it's more a matter of principle for some. You own a book, you don't own a digital copy of a book.

I assume this violates the EULA of most retailers and subjects your account to possible deletion. Not saying that it's likely, but DRM restrictions seem like a matter of principle to some people. Even if you can strip the DRM you still don't legally own the product.

The quote is right there:

"Radio (and TV) are uniquely obnoxious"

Ads are obnoxious. That's not unique to radio.

What? Are you implying I don't deserve my job or I shouldn't exist?

It's funny but my original post started with: "I know a lot of people are going to see this and react with an 'oh well'."

I'm an actual person, you know. I'm alive. I exit. My existence is not less important than yours... In my eyes.

But that's not a product of the medium, to be fair.

Aw. I want to like this, but I work in radio.

If you remove ads then there's no reason for the broadcaster to keep going.

I'm not trying to be controversial, but if you remove profit how can the business continue to exist? And if terminating the business is your goal, why? People seem to have a grudge against radio and I honestly don't know why.

It's my livelihood. I'm not seeking sympathy, but I am curious.

And we're discussing it because it affects us (the public,) what's your point?

How is not paying for content a huge expense?

My opening phrase ("As far as I know") was intended to imply that I am not an industry insider. These are indeed assumptions.

Are they unreasonable assumptions in your eyes? May I ask why? They seem reasonable to me.

Yes, 'no overhead' was incorrect. I meant 'significantly less overhead.'

Idk necessarily if the issue is 'who are you paying' as much as it is 'what are the people I'm paying actually contributing.'

And in the case of YouTube the answer seem to be: we created and refined some amazing video compression and streaming techniques. Now that that's done we just want to profit indefinitely?

AFAK, Traditionally it was:

Producer pays for content and profit is derived from distributers that charge for access to the content. If people don't view money is lost.

YouTube is different:

Creators pay to create their own content and are imbursed as they gain views.

YouTube, the distributer in this case, has no skin in the game. They have no overhead, it's all profit.

Perhaps that has something to do with it. It feels somehow like you're paying the middle man for nothing?

So, an average person can make a living wage on income from YouTube/Twitch royalties?

"...she’s also scared of taking days off, mainly because she knows it’s a job..."

At risk of sounding cold, why would anyone think YouTube/Twitch is a job?

Honestly confused. Is there money there? Like, for an average person, aside from the platform celebrities?

Is there any service that presents an elegant solution to managing actual identities on the Internet? If not, it seems like a real problem that needs solving.

I understand people value the ability to express themselves anonymously, but I've also been locked out of legitimate accounts--

If everyone is anonymous nobody can be verified. If everyone's identity is tied to their handle there's no anonymous expression.

If somebody could provide a way to both have and eat the proverbial cake, that seems like real winning proposition in my eyes, something worth paying for...

I'm not sure what you're trying to assert?

I'm not aware of a ile scale of brilliance. I also don't know why a history or libertarianism is relevant?

I just think that the comment wasn't constructive.

Unless you provide reasoning this comes across as needlessly snide.

Majority, sure. Vast? Not particularly.

Apple patented a system to do this in 2016[1] but has yet to implement it afaik.

[1]https://m.dpreview.com/news/0190365065/apple-patents-system-...

In addition to being somewhat condescending, your language seems to imply that an employee is never justified in questioning their company.

For instance, you've said "why people feel" instead of "why this person felt." Additionally, you're broadly referring to "companies" and not just "Google."

Whether or not protesting was the correct course of action in this particular case, I'm not sure. But please don't broadly imply that all whistle-blowers are entitled reward-seekers.

The comparison isn't wrong, it's nonsensical.

It's like comparing the mortality rate of heart surgery to that of psychotherapy because they're both performed by doctors.

If I died from talking to a therapist then, yes, I would see that as a major problem. The mortality rate of brain surgery wouldn't factor in to my decision making in this regard, because it's unrelated.

If I died on a Boeing aircraft with an inherently dangerous design flaw that makes it relatively more dangerous than other planes then, yes, I would see that as a problem.

The sad fact that driving is more dangerous does not mitigate that... because it's unrelated.

I think you're arguing that the relationship between activities doesn't matter, but when it comes to expectations, I'd argue it's the only thing that matters.

Sure, but that's not what I've taken issue with.

Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.

Respectfully, my objection is the implication that people should be okay with an "acceptable rate of mortality" for air travel because there's a relatively high rate of mortality for automobile travel (which is unrelated.)