>Hannibal Burgess
FYI, I believe it's Hannibal Buress
302 karma · joined November 11, 2017
FYI, I believe it's Hannibal Buress
Like everything physical, it takes up space.
Sounds like the kind of thing someone would be transparent about. As far as I know, there is no evidence that any of his claims are true. They could be, but he has a huge monetary incentive to lie.
Also, his vague language is a bit of a red flag. I put money back into my community when I spend it. But I call that shopping, not altruism.
YouTube's official position is that the monetization status of a video is not a factor in search and discovery, and that is probably true. But according to YouTube, all of the factors that impact advertiser friendliness (read: monetization) are factors in search and discovery.
As far as I know, there is no evidence of that beyond the creator's claims. What happened to skepticism? The creator has enormous economic incentives to lie.
If he is truly putting all of his channel's revenue "back into the communities that I shoot in" (whatever that means), why wouldn't he be proudly transparent about what that means.
How much money? Where has it gone? Can anyone verify it?
I would love to be wrong about this, but as far as I know the answers are:
Nobody knows. Nobody knows. No.
2. "Demonetized," when describing a YouTube channel, means one thing and one thing only: that the channel has been kicked out of the YouTube Partner Program.
I don't know why you would adopt your own, materially-different, definition of a word whose definition is widely accepted. Doing so creates unnecessary confusion, and — particularly in this case — is highly misleading.
Some of the videos that Soft White Underbelly creates are demonetized, or as YouTube puts it, found to not be suitable for all advertisers.
Creating content on YouTube has been my full-time job for more than five years. There is a HUGE difference between a channel being kicked out of the Partner Program and videos being 'demonetized.' (Namely, that in the latter case, all of your other videos, past and future, can still earn revenue.)
Honestly, this just seems like the guy is trying to encourage people to pay for his "members only" content. I don't blame him for that, but afactual alarmist titles are not the right way to help him along.
YouTube's policies regarding advertiser friendliness are annoying, but they are mostly clear — and as far as I know, they have not substantively changed recently.
Does Mozilla do that?
I have a Patreon page with hundreds of supporters. If I want to post a video for my supporters, it has to be hosted elsewhere. Patreon will not host and serve it.
Retaliation is not illegal.
I doubt that distinction protects the funds from a judgment creditor. The endowment money belongs to the university. Even though the university can only spend it in a certain way, that is an internal matter between the university and its donors. If the university did not have other funds from which to pay the judgment, I doubt the endowment money is protected just because it wasn't earmarked for "in case you lose a lawsuit."
I don't know what this means. Would you explain?
The most surprising thing about using that machine is that it's shockingly fast. And I own an M1 Ultra Mac Studio.
Why did you get the Mac Studio?
I found it pretty ridiculous that at Apple's most recent event they announced a product (the M2) that not only wasn't available for purchase, but that couldn't even be pre-ordered.
I don't think that is a fair description of what I have a problem with.
>Let's also not forget that the need to commercialize creative content using copyright can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not neccesarily what is best.
This is a huge problem, though it's not really related to copyright.
I think a more accurate statement, using your words, would be something like:
"Let's also not forget that the commercialization of creative content can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not necessarily what is best."
HUGE problem.
The content you see on YouTube today is determined, in large part, by what advertisers are and are not willing to have their brands associated with.
Huge, huge, problem. Particularly since viewers are typically unaware of it.
> Does it? I'm certainly not an expert of the matter but AFAII the constitution only ALLOWS the government to create laws like copyright but does not require it.
I believe that it does. Abolishing copyright would be a 'taking' of intellectual property, and would violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Without it, why would anyone choose to view the movie with ads when they can just download it and watch it with no ads?
(Legally, since in this hypothetical, copyright doesn’t exist.)
Or are you just arguing for ad-supported viewing of content? Which is what currently exists for an enormous body of material. See, for example, YouTube.
Hardly any of that content would exist at the quality level you are accustomed to, without copyright.
I say that as a producer of such content. If anyone could legally copy and distribute my work without my permission, I would not produce it, because there would be minimal financial incentive for me to do so.
The current level of such unauthorized distribution - by which I primarily refer to the republication of my work by others, in its entirety, for their own profit - is staggering. And that is with the existence of copyright law.
And it’s a huge disincentive from publishing more content. Both economically and because it’s demoralizing.
It’s also a huge waste of time, as in order to be able to pay my employees and myself, I have to dedicate time to combating infringement-as-a-business.
If copyright ceased to exist, I and nearly every other producer that I know, would find another line of work.
Fortunately, copyright ceasing to exist is unlikely to happen.
For starters, the wholesale abolition of copyright would violate the United States Constitution.
Over what period did the changes you reference happen? Am I longing for a City that no longer exists as I remember it?
Street View + Zillow show that a large two bedroom house I once rented for $1600/month in the heart of 78704 was demolished a few years ago. In its stead is a nice-looking but characterless house that just sold for $4 million. Fortunately, cost of living is not a significant concern at this point in my life, but I don’t want to move to 100 degree days, 100+ days a year, just to find that the city I left is no longer there.
I already don't store needless duplicates, and when I decide to store something, I don't have to go back to the source after I have stored it. That's the whole point.
How is IPFS helpful?
Has IPFS made anything happen that couldn't have happened without it?
What are its biggest accomplishments, outside of its own spread?
On my MacBook Pro, Command + Option + V universally executes the following AppleScript:
use scripting additions
do shell script "pbpaste | pbcopy"
return