There are playthroughs of single games that are more than 100 hours. Even if you're only playing "short" games, you're looking at 6-10 hours, which means you only give your audience a library of 10-15 vods? Average games are 20-40, so 5?
Vod viewing on twitch is also a pain, ads every 10 minutes, buggy playback, and vods don't play in order.
What's going to happen is anyone currently storing their playthroughs on twitch is now going to export to youtube. So I guess they want youtube to get the ad rev.
It'll just make also streaming to YouTube (or other services) simultaneously more attractive. Apparently Twitch has exclusivity agreements with some people, but it's already pretty common to do this.
Are there really 5+ day nonstop playthroughs? Are there just hours of no content while the streamer eats/sleeps? Why wouldn't that be split into multiple parts by the streamer, as a natural consequence of how it was recorded?
As pointed out elsewhere, past broadcasts/VODs had an autodelete horizon added years ago, so after a certain point, you'd have to reupload your content if you wanted it archived in perpetuity.
One might imagine this is just the logical followup of them adding that horizon initially, basically saying "the 1 in 200 of you who circumvented our policy, no, for real, stop that."
There have been streamers doing subathons of 30+ days. They usually eat while doing something else/watching something they will comment later, while they sleep there is either no content or some friends/moderators talk to the viewers.
And it might make sense, if the way youtube stores the video is more efficient. Ultimately live streaming/simulcasting are different that cold video. See how Netflix, having no problems doing efficient movie serving, doesn't do quite so great at providing a good experience in live events. And I'd bet that the storage model for youtube and Netflix is already quite different, as the number of total videos, and the distribution of who watches what, when and where, is quite different.
It doesn't even have to be more efficient, necessarily, just valuable enough to be more worthwhile.
In this case, they seem to be saying long-form archives aren't helping their business and are very expensive.
Of course, since that also de facto means people start pointing to their YouTube pages as their content archives, that means they think they have such a better platform for live content that they can survive people doing the calculus of "well, if I have to host my old content on YT anyway, why am I using Twitch if I'm just going to upload to YT after..."
Whether that's true or not, we'll see. (One might argue this is a given comparing the number of people I know who stream on Twitch versus YT, but Twitch is also the place that thought people wanted them to integrate a game store in their desktop app, and appears to have the attention span of a squirrel in long-term platform initiatives, so...we'll see.)
(I work for Google, I've never worked on anything related to YouTube, opinions my own.)
The whole first half of the article is a veiled implication that he was killed.
"he was upbeat about his testimony, feeling he was finally able to tell the story of his efforts to get the company to take safety more seriously"
The police said it was “a self-inflicted wound.” (Are those quotes or air quotes? cause they feel like the latter).
" No one can believe it."
"A family friend told ABC News that he had told her, “I ain’t scared, but if anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.” "
"The internet lit up. It was an “alleged suicide,” or “an apparent suicide.”"
and then... "it's suspicious, but nobody's going to look into it harder than they have."
At no point did the author of the article cover what the actual family said. That the man was ready to be a statistic from stress. Boeing was the source of that stress.
By opening up the article leaning into the conspiracy theory side of things, it only serves to discredit the rest of the content.
The narrative of "his doctor told him to quit the dam job or have a heart attack" ... "the situation gave him anxiety and PTSD" is another strike against Boeing in all this. He becomes a man pushed to, and over the brink by a corporate giant. Considering the circumstances that sounds awful and reasonable.
The NIH has begun doing studies on the effects of nanoplastics, and it appears there is evidence for buildup in the liver [1]. If asprin had a long half-life in your body, you'd have a maximum lifetime dose. The reason it makes a good medicine is due to the fact that it has a positive effect and leaves your body in a timely manner.
A good example in this instance is Lead. Its bad to have lead in your water even in relatively small amounts, because the half-life of lead in your soft tissues is months, and in your bone is 20-30 years. If nanoplastics end up being similar, you could end up with liver damage, or other medical complications if your exposure is high.
Even if you assume permanent lifetime build up, it seems like we're talking about ~10 nanograms per liter (as per grandparent post) of these plastics versus 15,000 nanograms per liter of lead that meets EPA safety limits.
I find it hard to assume the plastic should be more than a thousand times more worrisome than lead on a per-gram basis (That said, we have persistently underestimated the negative effects of the element.)
There would be very little economic effect if everyone in the world got a reverse osmosis drinking-water only filter ($200 every 10-15 years, $20-30 a year). Though we don't have any kind of structure that could actually make that happen.
I noticed this as well. The site is small enough it's not likely to draw enough scrutiny to face repercussions, however there's zero chance this is enough to satisfy various data protection laws.
Every union job I've had holiday pay, and every white collar job has paid time off for holidays.
In my life the only jobs that skipped holiday pay were hypercapitalist organizations that didn't have a unionized workforce and didn't compensate people for their time humanely.
Feelings alone do not make a rational standpoint. This ex-pressing (pressing outwards) of our feelings was the problem of romanticism, and it has to be balanced with what the reality tells back at us.
In other words, people don't seem to be saying they shouldn't have shared their feelings, but when they did they should have been ready to receive the criticism especially on logical results of their reasoning.
Not using products you've already purchased and enjoyed is most likely not an act of virtue, it probably changes nothing materially in the world to make it a better place. However, it is a display of purity in protest, which might inspire others to take action to the extent they are impressed by it, but it mostly feels egosyntonic for the person who does this demonstration.
Hence the criticism of virtue signaling; it is not the virtue bit, it is the signaling bit, divorced from the essence of being virtuous.
Definitely not - rationality is about a realistic view on the world and effective, perhaps even optimal, acts to achieve your goals, but it's completely, absolutely orthogonal to the nature of these goals. The goals, or perhaps "utility function" in formal terminology are essentially arbitrary from the perspective of rationality; it's generally rational to better understanding of your goals is very useful to effectively meet them, but a key principle is that "the utility function is not up for grabs", rationality is about effectiveness in obtaining what you want, but it does not and cannot constrain what is it that you want.
So IMHO games are a really good example - buying and playing games is a rational allocation of time and money if and only if the outcome (or, to be accurate, the sum of outcomes over long term) of playing games is more fulfilling than the alternatives; and it seems quite plausible that the enjoyment gaining from playing games may be very different for two completely rational actors and thus even from a completely rational standpoint they should make different decisions on whether playing games is a waste of time and money or a great use of them.
Exactly my point: if the current behavior of a company reduces the enjoyment you get from products that you previously bought from that company, you are both justified and rational not to want to use those products, and even to say "I do not want to use these products anymore."
No rational argument can change the original non-rational utility function. And no, there's no "virtue signalling" involved.
I don't understand this at all. You think it's rational to avoid things that one finds fun and interesting? That seems like an extremely suboptimal way to navigate through life.
I feel like any debate over the term “virtual signaling“ is missing the meta game (along with people who virtue signal or accuse others of virtue signalling).
Like there’s an evil genius(es) with ulterior motives behind it all.
> Like there’s an evil genius(es) with ulterior motives behind it all.
In a sense, I think there is. Instead of a cabal, it is just our collective intelligence getting lost in attractive pockets of irrationality.
I think virtue signaling could be as old as humans, because there are social and psychological benefits to being seen virtuous, without paying the costs of being virtuous.
The more it is demonstrated that people can get away with it, the more we are trained to consider that as an alternative, that we can get away with it too, and collectively we converge to a pit of empty appearances.
That said calling out something as virtue signaling also has failure modes; it is ultimately an accusation of duplicitousness and we can't really be sure of people's intentions. It can also have a chilling effect on genuine enactments of virtue.
That's because it is. The question to ask, of any argument, is "so what?": what do you want to do about it. The "so what" for an accusation of "virtue signalling" is to dismiss the original statement without any further consideration.
In recursive irony, those who use the phrase "virtue signaling" are also virtue signaling, and the it is, in itself a shibboleth for people of a certain political persuasion.
Calling out virtue signalling is useful to make people realize that judging a situation or person without having all the facts is damaging to society all around the world. This contributes a lot to the hipocrisy we see in the west nowadays which influences the entire world because of technology.
The outrage generated by all the mass media is not good as far as I'm concerned and it's good to remind people of that.
One of the things that companies rely on these days is engagement and playerbase. If you don't find that compelling, that's up to you, but Blizzard invests millions every year into maintaining their playerbase - so at least they find it compelling.
Just by being a part of the starcraft community, you are providing support to activision blizzard.
If we were talking about offline-only non-community driven content, sure... but this is a company that is almost entirely driven off of multiplayer games.
To play Starcraft II, one must open Battle.net, potentially exposing themselves to ads for the latest shiny game, and may lead them to break their boycott by buying said game. Having to visit the store to use the product changes the dynamic. If I bought a widget from the widget store, then found out the owner sexually harassed their employees, I would continue to use the widget while boycotting the store because I would never have to visit it. But if I had to occasionally bring in the widget for a free cleaning, I'd stop using it.
I'll admit, I don't work in the startup space. However, it seems to me that Google doesn't really run their products like a startup generally does. It seems like adapting your product to your existing client base is usually better than launching a similar but different product while your current one is live. Once you've fragmented your user base then shuttering one of your products and (hoping?) that the users who didn't migrate will finally migrate to your new product... that seems like a lot of unnecessary risk? Or maybe that's just the startup game?
I feel like if startups ran their business like google runs their products, they'd fail pretty quickly. Am I off base here?
Is this true or is it what Googlers who work on the low priority products that will inevitably be killed off after a few years tell themselves to feel better about working on what is essentially shovelware clones of the latest idea someone else is having some success with?
Google are big enough and generate enough profit that they can afford to have entire divisions of developers who are kept around in case they're needed one day. That doesn't make those people good developers though. Obviously there are some very capable people on those teams, but if they're genuinely talented why aren't they working on Search or Ads? That's what makes Google money, so that's why the best people end up, not on little side projects.
Uhhh.. PediaLyte and Ensure are vastly different products. Ensure is a weight gain meal replacement drink and PediaLyte is fancy gatorade.
Soylent is somewhere between Slimfast and Ensure. I'm not positive there's a quality calorically balanced meal replacement drink out there? Maybe there is, but whatever that is, Soylent is the branded version of that. Not PediaLyte or Ensure.
Vod viewing on twitch is also a pain, ads every 10 minutes, buggy playback, and vods don't play in order.
What's going to happen is anyone currently storing their playthroughs on twitch is now going to export to youtube. So I guess they want youtube to get the ad rev.