Your point seems to be hiring humans is wrong, because YouTube incorporated more AI to pretend like they're doing something, remain in the good books of copyright folks and make themselves more money. Is that correct? So, what if a person does not sympathize with Google or care about them making more money? Ultimately your perspective is shaped by whose side you're on.
Okay? But you can apply that logic anywhere to anything. Its also a "frightful gamble" that Google needs Microsofts and Apples blessing to operate on their platform. They have intrinsically tied themselves to a particular company's product. They also need Cisco's blessing for routing their packets. The default configuration of all of these products could be to ban google's products and services because they spy on their users or -insert-other-privacy-rationale-. I don't think just because you use and depend on another companies product that you should expect them to be malicious towards you.
Your math is flawed. This is about reviewing videos that face copyright strikes. Every single minute of uploaded content does not need to be reviewed. And on top of that there are several technology aids that can be used to shorten review times - while still having some human involvement.
> If their claim is found to be without merit, they forfeit the bounty to the person who created the video in question.
That would mean there needs to be an appeals process and humans who do the reviews, right?
Yes, whats more likely is that one of the countless bean counters at Google saw the long-tail revenue pie chart/breakdown and thought to themselves "Hmm! Would you look at that!" and just decided to not upset the apple cart..
You don't need scripts to know who visited your website. Scripts can potentially tell you how many are blocking your ads though. But its always a cat and mouse game. I prefer to simply avoid sites that show shitty ads.
By "we" do you mean only people who agree with you? Or do you accept that in a democratic society there can be ads? Personally, I don't block ads on principle. I simply don't visit websites that feature blaring over the top ads or otherwise feature annoyances. When you block ads you are explicitly signalling that you are receiving something of value by visiting the website. I prefer to not send that signal.
Fair enough, yes the convenience factor can drive more sales which is mutually beneficial, I'll give you that. But the OS can still put you in control and let you run things inside a sandbox. Its the 30% money grab that I was complaining about because the app store provides no assurances on anything, and so we are pretty much back to square one. Its still a "random" binary off the internet. And for a basic sanity check, you can scan the hash to determine if its a known malware.
I think its just the same bullshit as Walmart and Target selling toxic toys and then shifting blame onto the original supplier. Not sure what happened to the lawsuit though..
Agree to your second point on fraud/hassles,etc...
What I said was much milder - "A lot of small companies that were selling shrink-wrapped software have shuttered down - for various reasons no doubt, but the effect of a steady revenue stream on any business cannot be dismissed"
Specifically, I did not say that the subscription model is the only way to make money or stay in business. You're needlessly polarizing the issue and at this point, I'm gonna have to set the troll flag on you, and this conversation has stopped being productive. Bye.
Not to dismiss your point, but there was also a generation of people who wanted to mine the grand canyon. I think that as people we still have the same psychological trappings as we did before. But I do think we're becoming more conscious. Certainly, if you asked any of those lavender tramplers about setting of dynamite in that area to unearth copper or whatnot, they'd probably not support such an idea.
As a consumer, you are free to engage with a business of your choice. Likewise, a business is free to adopt a business model of their choice. That is the only "logic" at play here.
Well, I could sell it on my website and keep 100% of the sales? Modern operating systems seem to think any binary is malware these days. Windows ads a NTFS metadata tag to any file thats downloaded online and will throw up scary looking warnings when you try to run it. And the security folks spent years writing columns telling people not to download "random" binaries from the internet. So now we download "random" binaries from the App Store. Ofcource the app store has very little interest (beyond bad PR) in actually testing or ensuring that the application is not malicious, because who wants to hire tens of thousands of people for that when you can just use an "intelligent" algorithm to figure it out. They will pass the buck back to the vendor in a nanosecond when they discover malware in the app store. They're still going to keep the 30% of sales though. I'm not bitter, I promise! :)
Interesting comment to read on HN where a lot of people want their software to be free too. :) Just sayin'..
But yeah, I get your point.. its super annoying when people do those things or when they say "you must have a nice camera" instead of complimenting your skills.
A lot of small companies that were selling shrink-wrapped software have shuttered down - for various reasons no doubt, but the effect of a steady revenue stream on any business cannot be dismissed. Most of the software I use is either free, under some kind of subscription, or has a large corporate brand/vendor behind it. What about you?
>What ever happened to making a product, selling it once to the customer, who then gets to use it as they wish for as long as it works?
That was the old business model. It worked well for a while. Then most small software companies that sold general purpose software went out of business doing just that. And with App Stores basically stealing 30% of all your sales, its become even more harder to do that. A lot of major software companies have since moved to the subscription model and have seen a bump in revenue and profit. For me, its not a bad value proposition for things like Office or Photoshop where I appreciate the updates.
>I don’t want to pay your software team over and over so they can keep changing it on me over and over. Just make it once, sell it, then go make something else!
Interestingly, after Photoshop moved to the subscription model, Serif released their Affinity Photo software that was a one-time-payment-no-subscription software to compete with Photoshop and to cash in on the discontent. I bought it to support their efforts, but I kept using Photoshop because its just a better software and I'm more familiar with it. It will be interesting to see if Serif is still around in 5-10 years..
That's a good point. I'm overall positive about subscription software, but I don't like the fact that it always seems to go hand in hand with DRM and other nonsense. I'd rather they take some modest amount per year and let me do whatever I want with the software. Its a headache to make the software work when the computer is on an isolated network and will never be connected to the internet. Office 365 I'm looking at you.. :P
>99% of single threaded industry software doesn't need more power.
Again, I don't know if that is true. I'd love to see stats on that. My gut tells me improved single-threaded perf will always be welcome in most software because most data transforms are not not easily parallelizable. Certainly for me, more single threaded perf is always welcome in all the software I use daily.. from office suites to compilers to IDEs to photoshop to soft-PLCs/SCADA/HMI or even when opening a super large excel file with crazy forumlas. I don't think its just gaming.
The specifications of budget/cheap computers are not really an indicator of what will or wont benefit from single-threaded perf. Whether the benefit is worth paying for will obviously depend on other factors. For me its a nobrainer.
I have no idea what happens under the hood in Linux, but I have never observed my Linux desktop 'crawling to a halt' because of some silly webapp. This is normal expected behavior. I know for a fact that ensuring responsiveness of GUI apps has been in the NT scheduler for decades. Look up dynamic priority groups. There is really no point rehashing and arguing over basic design issues that anyone can lookup and as such this thread is not really productive for either of us. Hope you have a nice day, Goodbye!
I don't think its true that most people do web browsing. Its just an easy generalization to make. The world has thousands of industries and each specialty domain has their set of software suites that they need for their business. In my industry (pharma), and I'll adda caveat here that I haven't done a rigorous scientific analysis of every single workload, but off hand, all of our software is heavily dependent on single-thread perf. To be sure, there is some stuff that benefits from multiple cores.. dna sequencing/alignment/processing comes to mind, primarily because we're processing hundreds of GBs of data. But by and large, I would pick a CPU that has better single-thread perf. For our accounting folks who use quickbooks a lot, are not going to benefit "massively" from a high core count. For our facilities team that uses autocad.. again same thing .. I don't find a massive benefit from 10-12+ core systems. Sure you can always on a case-by-case basis invent scenarios which could potentially benefit from more cores, but this massive gain across the board that you claim is a bit of an exaggeration. IMHO/IME/YMMV/$0.02 etc..
Well.. I don't know what to say, I guess you should report those bugs to the appropriate vendors then. I don't believe a memory leak means we tell people to buy more memory :)
>"Primarily because any modern OS will throttle crazy runaway threads to ensure UI responsiveness" seems like you have a particular OS in mind, and I would be interested in hearing more.
Sure. You should read up about thread scheduling and how an OS scheduler works. I don't think I can explain that in a comment, and I'd do a poor job anyway.
>I do not observe that behaviour on Debian 9 (and other Linux distros), Mac OS X, and Windows 7/8. I regularly bring any of those to UI stuttering/freeze from various workloads. Webapps only really breaks the lesser ones singlehandedly though (most of my other systems are 4+ core with 32GB+ RAM).
>The ability to run a few webapps without having your system drag to a halt is a feature that's important to essentially everyone.
Webapps such as? I have a 4 core CPU from 2014 (i7-4790K) and I can't recall that ever happening to me. Primarily because any modern OS will throttle crazy runaway threads to ensure UI responsiveness, so the system doesn't 'drag to a halt' as you claim.
Also honestly.. how many people are looking at CPU benchmarks to run browsers better? I'd wager a twenty that its mostly gaming nerds who are obsessed with CPU benchmarks. Then.. its also a question of knowing your audience. I'm sure they have a better idea of who their audience is than you or I.
What is the "outright lie" here? Its their opinion on what they think is important for the needs of their audience. Taking advantage of so many extra cores by a single process is not all that easy or common. In a multi-process scenario the extra cores are obviously very useful. A person intending to buy a CPU for server loads would look at the appropriate benchmarks...
A Japanese client of ours ran into some trouble with the Japanese government due to some financial irregularities, and there was a huge shakeup.. the entire top management was sacked by the owners of the company. Not saying Japan is perfect, there is a lot of crony capitalism there too, but I found it amusing to observe nonetheless. Maybe we need a bit more of that here..
Well, the suppliers supply to other companies too, and they use raw materials from other suppliers themselves. Why would the they move to EU or US for a single customer? Apple squeezes their suppliers so there's no real love there to begin with. The whole manufacturing sector in China is a massive web of tiny vendors tightly coupled with each other. Its huge stash of rare earth metals certainly helps too. I don't believe we're going to see manufacturing move outside of China outside of a major world destabilizing event. I'd estimate that China is about a decade or two away from having its own cutting edge chips and its dependence on external vendors is going to diminish even further. That's not necessarily bad IMHO, every culture and country has their time on the top of the heap. I guess its China's turn.. in a "BIG WAY".
Well, thats a fair criticism. But I'm saying its like trying to avoid being kidnapped when you're already in the trunk of someones car. Sometimes the trunk is nice and large and roomy... :)
>They’ve simply made the economic decision that it’s more profitable for them to cheat the system then work within it.
Well, a private company created an arbitrary system with arbitrary rules to make them gobs of cash, and now the entire world should "work within it"? Why? Personally I don't run an ad-blocker out of principle, so maybe I'm a bit more sensitive than the average person here since I get exposed to this garbage everyday.
Google also wants to "cheat" the system by not hiring any actual humans to actually make sure that people aren't tricked with ads for dick pills with heavy metals or protein power that is toxic or ads about payday loans or whatever other crazy scam-ads people run. Google wants to automate everything and leave the rest of us wading in this garbage. How about hiring people to fix the mess they created instead of stuffing their pockets? I'm only mentioning Google here, but I don't want to necessarily single them out, all of the web advertising platforms are responsible in someway or another. Its just that Google is an easy target since they are the largest ...
>I’m not making a value judgement here.
Um.. I believe the use of word parasite precludes you from making any such claim :)
Apple pulled the liquid damage bullshit on my ipod. The device wasn't worth much so I declined and got a el-cheapo sansa. Apple is also trying to shut down independent repair, so in the future, there might not be a third-party repair shop who can expose Apple's lies..
Why are the powerless people the parasites? Google (and also others) is not a morally neutral entity here. They created this problem. They could stem the flow of malvertising or click-farming or spamming by hiring more and more review staff as their company has scaled, but its simply not in their DNA. I mean literally they are the richest of the richest of companies in the richest country and their owners are amongst the richest people on earth.. and the tired out cliche is still "it doesn't scale". Yeah..I'm pretty sure you can hire a few more folks to your team.. :-)