Video ads are less lucrative than ads alongside search, which can be a lot more closely tailored to both the user and the search results at hand. The existence of YouTube Premium shows that Google is indeed willing to provide paid ad-free experiences so long as it nets them more revenue, and is strong evidence that the same is not true for search.
This isn't really true anymore. Most notable creators have "sponsored" content somewhere and ads in platforms don't have to be an explicit, traditional ad. Product placement for the sake of no other reason than product placement is also advertising.
YT has more angles. That's really the point. And monetization is adjusted accordingly.
Beyond all of this ads are more increasingly invasive due to the cat and mouse game of iteration. Personally, I bounce from sites where I can't get around a blocker. I also pay for content on sites where its worth it. But if I can't ever read anything on your site I'm just skipping it. If I really need / want to see something I'll go one level deeper, but that's a rarity these days. Everything is mostly in reprint somewhere else anyway.
At the end of the day it's still simple sales: you have a product at a price point people can't refuse. That is the 5% of the clear web today and it shows in all the bullshit people are going through to protect their ad revenue.
I don't why people say this. They even include their own version of sponsor block, which is generous, because technically sponsor segments aren't even part of youtube, they are purely the creator deciding to make the ad part of their content.
Also, just to put it out there, many creators would likley be able to cut sponsored content if the 40% of viewers not viewing ads paid up. Not every creator is a greedy ruthless overlord, many just want to keep the lights on. Especially in tech/nerdy channels, where ad block use is the highest.
Creators can also stop uploading videos if they are not OK with adblock users viewing them. We would still have more than enough videos to watch if all profit-motivated creators stopped and I'm not sure the average quality would be any worse.
A lot of people will have a few more potato-heavy meals if they happen to have more potatoes. This means they'll (presumably) buy a little less of other ingredients for a spell, and maybe we'll end up with more of those going to waste, but it's definitely possible for that not to happen. Seems like a ripple of delayed food purchases of dry goods can be absorbed by reduced production far, far down the line.
That said, MPU has been pretty solidly crazy with their LLM critiques lately (did you know it uses all the drinking water?!?!?). There are plenty of sane, grounded-in-reality critiques. Why not focus on those?
If so, keep in mind that it's contingent advice. The question was how to profit from predicting an AI bubble popping [or something along those lines]. The answer is shorting Nvideo (assuming your prediction also includes a timeline).
It's always a way to lose a massive amount of money if you're wrong, so the advice is also contingent on confidence level.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, but I think it's very naive to assume you get to "profit from predicting an AI bubble." In theory, maybe, but in reality you will lose money. Shorting is never the solution... it's a very niche tool for very niche group of investors.
When retail guys talk shorting, it's very hard to take them seriously.
Retail guys generally think they can time the market based on vibes, rather than specific insider-y info. But if you (retail investor or not) have that specific insider-y info--something resulting in justified, high probability, time-bounded knowledge about a future change, shorting can be the rational decision.
Keep in mind that in the US this is illegal, and it's unreliable, since insufficient postage mail isn't necessarily returned. This is one of the oldest forms of mail fraud, and they're well aware of it.
I recently bought a small pack of pens because 1. I keep not having pens when I need them, but mostly 2. Subscribe and Save discount on some much higher priced increased by 5%-10%, easily overwhelming the price of the pens.
No, it’s completely different. Gmail actively tries to prevent spam. If they catch you sending it, you will be banned, and they let individual users block whoever they want. A huge part of their product is automated spam filtering.
On the other hand, spam delivery is the business model of USPS. They actively and intentionally market and sell their services to spammers, and not surprisingly, give normal users no way to opt out.
There are mail forwarding services[0] that let you automatically filter out junk mail. Yes, they cost money, but at least you can accomplish your goal of opting out (or in) from receiving postal mail from certain senders.
[0] E.g. https://www.usglobalmail.com/virtual-mailbox/
If your goal is to receive zero mail at your address, simply have all your email forwarded to this service and configure it to opt-out of all notifications.
Alternately, you can forward your mail to an entirely different address. (This is just a Gedankenexperiment; please don't spam strangers by forwarding your mail to them.)
This isn't a special operator. This is just how "not" (!) works. In basically every language: C, C++, Javascript, Perl, etc., ! is the "not" operator so !12 gives you false (12 is truthy), and !!12 (not false) gives you true.
It's the same in languages that use different operators for "not". In python, the "not" operator is just the word not, and can write "not not 12" to get True. They didn't implement a special "not not" operator, anymore than Perl implemented a "!!" operator. They just implemented the basic ! / "not" operator.
Right, that's the point of TFA. It doesn't list "special" operators, it lists "secret" operators -- that is, operators combined from existing sigils that do clever things.
The "Venus" operator is a good example: it's the '+' addition operator! You just add zero to a value that's coercible into a number.
The Eskimo operators are also interesting: similar to a SQL injection attack, you use a close brace and an open brace to stop and start a new code block from within a string that's sent to the interpreter. Perl didn't invent open and close braces: hence the verb "discover" rather than "implement".
The whole page is a bit of a lark, and a good example of why some of us don't enjoy Perl!
Keep in mind that applying the logical NOT operator twice (using `!!`) converts any integer expression into a strict boolean.
Any non-zero value becomes `1`, and zero remains `0`. This is commonly used for boolean normalization
when the original expression yields a bitmask or arbitrary integer.
While the same result can be written as `(x != 0)`, the `!!x` idiom is concise, widely used in low-level
C code, guarantees a result of exactly `0` or `1`, and works well in macros and constant expressions.
A bit of an aside, but the importance ranking seems...utterly insane? Pope Francis is one of 266 Popes, and is more important than the other 265? Really? Just so happens that the Pope who served the past few years beats out literally every other Pope, including Leo X, Paul III, and Peter, and also Jesus (who is in turn outranked by Mary)?
Earlier today, I was thinking about doing something somewhat similar to this.
I was recently trying to remember a portal fantasy I read as a kid. Goodreads has some impressive lists, not just "Portal Fantasies"[0], but "Portal Fantasies where the portal is on water[1], and a seven more "where/what's the portal" categories like that.
But the portal fantasy I was seeking is on the water and not on the list.
LLMs have failed me so far, as has browsing the larger portal fantasy list. So, I thought, what if I had an LLM look through a list of kids books published in the 1990s and categorize "is this a portal fantasy?" and "which category is the portal?"
I would 1. possibly find my book and 2. possibly find dozens of books I could add to the lists. (And potentially help augment other Goodread-like sites.)
Haven't done it, but I still might.
Anyway, thanks for making this. It's a really cool project!
Ad-free YouTube costs $14 a month (and the creators get a higher payout from premium user views than they do from the free, ad-viewing users).
reply