zeruch

That was my first thought as well. Yahoo's internal culture was already scrambled beyond real repair (at least not in any timeframe the board would have likely accepted) and any acquisition they made they would have bolloxed.

LQ was nice, but generally seemed too inside its own head, I stuck with Monocle as a subscription and would pick up LQ spot issues whenever the topic piqued my interest.

I've had similar thoughts.

If its like Androids speech to text capabilities, it was likely just getting progressively worse anyway.

" A bunch of trash sites we learn to ignore in our search results?" Exactly. But when/if that stack shifts the signal to noise ratio at escape velocity into a toilet, behaviors will change.

I'm just curious as to what that might look like. We've already seen plenty of examples as to what folks will do when an online option becomes sour/untenable...new ones arrive. Sometimes they look like old options repackaged. Sometimes they are radically new.

I cant foresee a scenario where an endlessly growing mass of AI-generated noise, stacked upon itself, will be useful to anyone. Humans will invariably find a less contentious path (maybe its seeking out more localized options, maybe its balkanizing into various specialized domains, maybe its $NEWTHINGYETTOBESEEN, or all of the above. But the current trajectory cannot hold.

Someone else mentioned the "reverse-takeover of Google by DoubleClick is the Fall" and I find that spot on.

The Dionysian appetites of adtech will be its own downfall.

"I might be willing to pay google if there was more transparency about how much of my money actually goes to creators vs how much of it goes to google"

That would be a major step forward, akin to old Bandcamp.

But that isn't YT's model.

"We can still watch demonetized channels, google doesnt seem to nag me about those. "

They do.

"but when the idea of paying for youtube comes along, who directly profit shares with small creators you adore, people fall over backwards in disgust."

Probably a combination of misgivings:

1. Google cant keep a product/service alive worth a damn, or ones that do get changed to be piss eventually

2. Paying other content providers for content they provide feels different than paying Youtube for mostly content they carry that was pirated/unlicensed anyway (e.g. full disclosure,I mostly use it to watch jazz and funk bootleg concerts or old 80s music videos or other ephemera YT really had damn all to do with and likely dont monetize for the actual creators worth a damn).

3. Somewhere between the two is the fact that for some licensed materials, you still have the region-constraint. If Yt Premium covered truly global reach, it might be more tantalizing, but as it stands...meh.

It's dryshite ROI.

Same (and bonus, it operates from the perspective of an Arts non-profit, so I have an art studio for myself that doubles as an office, but I can still use the co-working space at will, 24-7): https://www.localcolorsj.org/

"WeWork is not tech. It was never tech. It will never be tech. It shouldn't have ever traded at tech multiples or valuations."

TBH, most tech shouldnt be traded at tech multiples of valuations.

PE could be "fixed" with one simple change, make them fiduciaries all the way down.

(I mean, it would likely also nuke the PE domain, but I consider that a feature not a bug).

PE is a pox that focuses on short-term, debt-riddled 3 card monty games, and should be annihilated. It's like the fecal byproduct of something Milken and Gekko would sire.

Pete Townsend > Roger Daltry.

Fight me.

No Sourceforge? No Slashdot? The Well?

I've been an acquaintance of Rob since the VA/Andover acquisition, and he's seriously one of the most affable people I've ever met in the industry. Him and Hemos were a great pair of folks to rub elbows with. I still have a business card of mine that he vandalized after he stole a pen off my desk for its sheer comedic perfection.

Guys like him make this kind of work worth it.

I played the original game this was based on, and loved it. One of the best games ever made IMHO. I'm kinda glad this exists and has the kind of long-tail life most properties SHOULD be allowed to have.

Thanks William F Schmuckly. Enoch Powell called, and wants his underpants back.

Thanks for the clown-shoe polemic. I left the GOP because of folks like you. Don't bother replying as I suspect I could map out the quality in advance.

Which of his ideas exactly, have not stood up?

Good to hear. The fact that in 2005 you had an app that required seemingly petabytes of memory to operate, and put on machines barely powerful enough to play minesweeper, was in and of itself a series of bad decisions...but the app itself, and it's layout were just maddening. It's like MC Escher was the UX lead.

CS = Customer Support/Care in that regard.

Early on (15+ years ago) I spent a few weeks there on contract and I noticed they used Java EVERYWHERE, and not always well. They had a CS app named after a key Star Wars character that was in all likelihood a breach of the Geneva Convention. A code atrocity with the performance of a sloth on its 8th bong rip with a UX from hell.

Unity didn't just screw the proverbial pooch, but dry humped the whole kennel.

Something (someone) had to pay for it.

That's how I interpreted it. Everyone seems to want the advantages of the FOSS model for general benefit, but want firms to have their advantages at the same time, and not acknowledge the inherent adversarial aspect of that.

Your delivery is beyond deadpan to a kind of exhumed-pan I find impressive. Superior snark sir.

The volume of fairly famous or otherwise well-established musicians in rock, funk, and even jazz with a poor or non-existent ability to read or write music notation is not insignificant.

Then there are all the non-western scale musicians who learn other systems, or use some variation of solfège to explain musical ideas.

...a power MSFT deeply wishes it had and would argue is fine if they were in Google shoes.

There are some deep ironies in this case.

This is basically the entire industry now. Even firms that aren't public operate as if they are.

Why not both?

I arrived at the same conclusion, but I had to re-read it to be sure, because it doesnt exactly flow that well, particularly at the first third or so.