|
Arglebargle III posted:You have to admit it's worth a mention here for how utterly predictable this all was: I thought the first chart was faked to look like the second chart but nope, it is real https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/conc7en/stages_in_a_bubble.html
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
aware of dog posted:I think it's that they don't allow you to have in-video links to Patreon pages My understanding is they don't allow you to have in-video links period (unless you are monetizing), not just links to Patreon, the explanation being that in-video links tend to be used a lot for spam. You can still have a link to Patreon in the description as far as I know.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:It's actually a lot easier and cheaper to self host video now than its ever been. Cloud storage is very cheap and highly reliable, and most browsers can display video with a few lines of native HTML. You might need to pay a little bit for a CDN, but even that has come down a lot in cost, and there are services like Cloudinary that provide a lot of that functionality out of the box that have a free tier, so it'd be easy to set up to start. You could use Stripe and Stripe Subscriptions to monetize through donations and member content, no Patreon required. It's a bit more work than just uploading to youtube, but it's mostly upfront work and you could probably hire somebody cheap from Upwork to do it for you if you really don't want to gently caress around with that. Some quick back of the envelope calculations based on AWS S3 egress prices comes out to about $0.77 per hour of 1080p video streamed. Better hope your 10 minute video doesn't go viral and get a million views or you're looking at a $130,000 bill for the month
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
FamDav posted:even then, cloudflare has flat rate plans for CDNs*. stick all your media behind that and let them handle making it economical. Cloudflare doesn't recommend streaming video through their CDN because it has performance problems. That probably isn't going to work with any kind of volume. They have a streaming solution in beta but I'm betting it's gonna cost more than their flat rate CDN.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:pointless for big time players who can set up their own websites easily and don't want to deal with youtube's increasingly larger share of revenue and growing hassles? Is this actually happening? Like is there a real example of a big time player who has done this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Holy poo poo business people are stupid. What is your business plan for making a profitable highly available video sharing platform that is free for everyone to use and isn't inundated with spam? I'm not crazy about some of YouTube's decisions but it's not like there is some easy answer that is going to make everyone happy
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Big YouTube content providers didn't just pop into existence. Unless you're a corporate channel you started small. Shutting out the little guy ensures that in 10 years you'll have half the content. Until 2012 the little guys couldn't do advertising anyway and YouTube was still successful. I think the pittance of money the little guys were making before isn't going to make that big of a difference
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Wallet posted:My impression was that the issue isn't the pittance that small viewership channels will be losing out on now that they don't qualify for advertising, but rather that Youtube (understandably) prioritizes monetized content when making recommendations. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en&ref_topic=6029709 quote:Monetization status is not used to inform how videos display on YouTube. If your channel is no longer in the YouTube Partner Program after February 2018, it does not mean your videos will be limited in search and discovery.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:They serve their own ads on all videos, so every video is monetized for them. This part is incorrect
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:The person that uploads the video chooses to monetize or not The exception* being if your video has material that is copyrighted, then the owner of the copyright can monetize your video anyway *That I'm aware of
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:It’d be nice if the papers got together and created some sort of news iTunes, so you could pay a small fee per premium news article read (say 10c.) It gets added up and charged once a month. Even the biggest news junkie can’t afford to subscribe to 3 papers. The Guardian has huge influence due to no paywall. Blendle does this, but you have to read through their app/website. It's a pain finding an article you want to read and then digging through the app to find it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Something Awful has the worst advertising, constant popups that prevent you from even looking at the page, and probably install malware from the look of them. I suppose everyone browses with adblock installed, being tech-savvy here. You can pay $5 to never see ads on SA again https://secure.somethingawful.com/products/noads.php
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:https://twitter.com/joshuatopolsky/status/959448447156932608 What I want to know is who are these people that care about LinkedIn?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I wonder if Facebook thinks I exist? I don't have an account but they might because they bought Spotify. On the other hand there are many people with my exact name. The credit agencies occasionally mix us up (which is a pain.) I am pretty sure I've never appeared in any photo posted on Facebook and have probably never been mentioned in a Facebook post. I also haven't show up in web search result since about 2008. Facebook doesn't own Spotify
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If driving only changed its properties as much as Go does, this would be relevant. In reality, you need to do a lot of very hard processing all the time to make something that can reliably transit just the paved public road system of the US. You really come across as someone who has no idea what you are talking about but is very confident that they do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's the people who are claiming the self-driving cars are just around the corner this time for realsies! Nobody is speaking as confidently or authoritatively in the positive direction as you are in the negative direction.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The difference between GM decades ago and GM now is that they’ve already retooled a factory to be able to produce autonomous vehicles at mass production scale. On the other hand some guy on a comedy forum said it will never happen
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:1) Every "self-driving" platform is incapable of actually being self-driving in real world unconstrained conditions. You are holding self driving car companies to a standard that is overly critical for this stage of development. Waymo is doing driverless ride service in the real world. Yes, it is in an area that has good conditions, but why wouldn't a self driving car company start rolling out in a place with ideal conditions and then expand from there? If they expand to another half dozen metro areas with generally good weather is it still just a PR stunt? Is it only a success if the cars can drive themselves in 100% of the conditions a human can? What is your metric for success?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:People are claiming there's going to be self-driving cars available soon, so self-driving car companies should drat well be able to drive someone 80 miles up to Brooklyn on a rainy Sunday NOW. That's not an unreasonable request. You don't seem to get that something that only functions in ideal conditions is something you could be riding in 20 or more years ago. quote:I've already given you the metric of success: it needs to be able to take me anywhere paved I can already drive myself, in this old Subaru Legacy. It needs to be able to do this in any conditions I can handle myself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
 ... so about those self driving cars, they'll be here any day now, right guys?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm curious how someone can look at the data that shows record numbers of students saddling themselves with crippling debt, and somehow come away with the belief that this is a personal failure. It is real easy to assume the system works if it worked for you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Maybe Google should just get rid of their dumbass internal message board. Who the hell thought any good would come out of it Nah the message boards are fine and really useful actually. This whole internal crisis thing is more a media narrative than an actual big thing. When Advanced Auto fires Joe for going on a racist rant about the Mexicans BuzzFeed doesn't give a poo poo, but articles about how bad it is to work for Google get a whole bunch of clicks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, I am sure a lot of the complaints are stuff about the icecream in the lunchroom tasting off or the bathroom on level 3 not being cleaned well that they absolutely want management to see and not chants of capitalist overthrow that needs to be spoken of in night time signals of patterns of lit and unlit candles. Nah, there is a separate system for those complaints. It is more like "How do I do x?", "Which x should I buy?", "Why was this product decision that I don't like made?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Everyone I know who has/has used a Chromebook is really happy with it. They're really good at what they do and as long as you know what you're getting they are nice
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Please stop embarrassing yourself, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Go on and tell the class how Android is secretly a Gentoo branch now, if you would. It couldn't matter less
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i wouldn't describe any of these cities as "far cheaper" personally. cheaper but, not much You are underestimating how expensive Mountain View is. https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/mountain-view-ca/boston-ma/50000 https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/mountain-view-ca/los-angeles-ca/50000 https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/mountain-view-ca/new-york-ny/50000 https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/mountain-view-ca/chicago-il/50000
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i think you'll find that people who dont work for google find both the bay area and nyc equally difficult to afford, fishmech They will find both difficult to afford, but not equally so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, it's pretty easy to say. the car hit a person, the person had the right of way, the operator of the car was at fault (uber). If the person was outside of a crosswalk they didn't have the right of way and may be legally to blame for the accident.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
At 40mph it takes 76ft to stop a car even with 0 reaction time. It is not out of the realm of possibility that someone could be distracted and step out in front of a car that physically can not stop before hitting them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:your friend doesn't have anywhere close to perfect reaction time so i'm not sure why you think the anecdote is particularly applicable. You keep ignoring the fact that reaction time is only part of the equation. Cars don't magically stop the second someone/something hits the brakes
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, but it's a much lower threshold than you guys have been proposing. Condiv posted:autonomous cars are vastly more capable with regards to reaction time than humans, so the car should have been able to avoid the accident under p much any scenario
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Imagine being such a fan of robots that you immediately start victim blaming a dead human when they are killed by a robot. Without having any additional information about the details of the situation. I'm not a fan of robots but I do hate humans
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Even if Uber is at fault (which wouldn't be terribly surprising) making sweeping claims that autonomous vehicles are 10x more dangerous than cars based on a single data point is dumb. That guy is just trying to get publicity for his blog
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what do you mean single data point? he has numerous sources One death
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he didn't base that 10x figure off this one death, he already came to it from other data He's comparing apples and oranges, and to be fair he admits that. We don't really know what percentage of disengagements would have turned into accidents. He thinks that 1 in 10 is a generous guess, and maybe it is, but it is just a number he made up. Not based on anything other than his hunch. The guy is tripping over himself to say "I told you so" before knowing whether or not Uber was even at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:in what way would you claim he's tripping over himself to claim uber was at fault? the post in the tweet was published a month before this quote:also, would you argue that 1/10 disengagements turning into accidents is not being generous? remember, these are events are described as "a deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual control of the vehicle." i'd argue that such events, in a system that should be autonomous and that people are saying could handle the road without a human driver are more likely than 1/10 to cause an accident. imo, it's pretty easy to draw a line to these events happening in a system meant for public use (not staffed with a professional test driver) and vehicular accidents. The number of times that any given person does something dangerous while driving and doesn't cause an accident is way more than 10 times per accident. I see close calls literally every single time I drive but I see relatively few actual accidents on a daily basis.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's not really comparable to a disengagement event though? how many times do you see people going unconscious behind the wheel and things turning out fine? when i think disengagement event i think things like that or quote:so, why are you so certain that uber was not at fault then? what exactly have you seen that points to that conclusion? them halting self-driving tests? the testimonials in thread about how pedestrians dart in and out of heavy traffic like squirrels? Of course they stopped self-driving tests, they are performing an investigation and if it turns out they were at fault it's going to look really bad if they ignored it and kept their cars out there. They would halt the tests during the investigation whether they are at fault or not. quote:the reason he's claiming "i told you so" is because self driving cars have been getting into accidents at rates above human accident rates already, and now they've gotten someone killed way earlier than they statistically should've. Jose Valasquez fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:self driving cars have many multitudes higher reaction times than humans oocc. if it were not malfunctioning, stepping in front of it would trigger it attempting to slow down. it did not attempt to slow down. that is extremely indicative of malfunction of the autonomous system. Autonomous cars don't have instant reaction times. The best estimate I found was about 0.5 seconds. That gives about 30ft at 40mph. It is not unreasonable that someone could step out in front of a car that is 30ft away if they aren't paying attention. I know that if the investigation comes back and Uber is in fact at fault you're going to be smug and think you won this argument, but nobody is arguing that Uber is not at fault, they are arguing that there isn't enough public information to definitely say that Uber is at fault. You are wrong even if Uber is at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Condiv posted:0.5 seconds would put autonomous cars at below human reaction times. where are you getting that number? Human reaction times while driving are not anywhere close to 0.25 seconds while driving. http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html posted:Expected: the driver is alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary. This is the absolute best reaction time possible. The best estimate is 0.7 second. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal. This is the only reference I've found for self driving car reaction times https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-perception-humans/ posted:Machines can react faster than humans, in about 0.5 seconds on a dry road compared to 1.6 seconds for the meatbags.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 01:22
|
|