The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.
Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…
I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.
I had read that post already. Even if there are things that she’s doing that isn’t great, it doesn’t really justify a group of people circlejerking hate about them.
From the posts I’ve seen so far, it feels like the community is stating that they only exist to criticize what they see as a misleading influencer, but to me it all comes off as bullying/harrassment.
If they want to encourage change of some sort they could try and do that, but that’s not what the posts are encouraging, it feels like generic woman hate targeted at a single woman.
It’s frustrating because this government didn’t make up the name. This is a well understood system. By calling it by the typical name it should be easier for people to look into it understand it.
But so many people lack the ability to look into things and instead just listen to what politicians say.
But of course none of that matters these days. 😞
Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.
I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.
But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory… In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it “what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying” and you would want a response.
I’m not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that’s roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.
There already aren’t gas stations in these remote locations. Why would there need to be EV chargers??
The thought of having rail service small campsites is comical.
If we did move to a world where cities are dense enough that public transit did replace cars for most people, cars would still be a viable rental for when leaving the city.
I’m always confused by these criticisms, do I misunderstand how they work?
Reading this article, this 1.7million is an interest free loan, so taxpayers are only covering the lost potential of that money being used elsewhere, unless something happens whichs exempts them paying back.
For the various EV related plants, the majority of the subsidies are tax rebates. Which means the company needs to setup and actively operating in Canada such that they are making enough revenue in Canada that their paying enough taxes to be able to untalize any rebate. As Canadian taxpayers the tax revenue were missing is purely net-new revenue that wouldn’t exist if the company didn’t setup here. It’s not like we’re writing a blank check, we’re just saying that if they setup here and start making money, they can pay us less money for the first while.
Neither of those feel like obvious bad deals for Canadians. Am I missing something?
Ok I’ll bite. How does Canadian policy cause global inflation?
The only angle that I can think of is that we’ve had a larger impact on carbon production than most other countries, and at least when it comes to global food inflation, climate change is having a noticable impact. So one might be able to argue that our role in climate change is causing food inflation. But I doubt anyone has actually done any peer reviewed studies on that so it’s likely just assumptions at best.
adding that she “generally” doesn’t attend flag raising events.
Feels like the most relevant part of the article.
This feels like unnecessary noise. Yes Shoppers Drug Mart, like corner stores, sell food at a large markup. They’ve always done this, they know that if you’re picking up food there you’re willing to pay a convenience markup.
Shifting any focus here gives Loblaws a potential out by just reducing prices at shoppers, which has nothing to do with what we actually want to happen.
What?
What projections are you looking at? It is a few cherry picked ones? Generally the projections going back to the 80s are in line with what’s actually happening, if anything they were optimistic.
Even if you don’t agree with projection or that we’re actually in-line with them, the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature isn’t disputable anymore.
Good? 140$ per night for a hotel room is roughly what I would have expected, it’s not like this government (or the Conservatives) would ever consider building and operating their own housing, so this is the only option…
I imagine the problem here is that we need more government workers hired to process asylum seekers, but once again would we expect the Conservative government (the one that has been on and off criticising the number federal workers we have) to actually hire more people to fix that?
I’m so tired of reading these low effort “news” pieces
Well of course not. These game studios were selling games at 60-80$ each. Microsoft bought them, then started providing the all the games for a flat fee of 15$ per month.
I assumed their strategy was to lose money in the medium term while they worked on getting people used to playing games on subscription. Where they make their money back is when they stop outright selling games at full price and make them only available on subscription, and then they slowly start increasing that monthly subscription cost.
In order for that to work they need a large library and like 5-10 years.
Don’t forget you only get taxed extra if you realize all those earnings in the same year. So not only do you need to make more than 250k you also need to have a reason to take it out all at once rather than a little bit each year as you typically would if it were retirement income or something along those lines.
It started good, but then started to fall into typical conservative taking points.
He correctly identified that the problem started when Canada sold off crown corporations, but then attributed the problem to over regulation of these newly private cooperation.
Somehow he also called CBC a monopoly in there, which is a wild jump.
My main take away from this video is the best solution is to deregulate (the other points were “increase competition”, but at this point that’s like politians saying they will create more nurses or doctors, unless you also state a plan I assume you’re just blowing smoke). His argument for how deregulating airlines or banking or ISPs would make things better for us didn’t really exist.
Regulations might make it hard to start a new bank, so I’ll give him that. But I have a hard time seeing how regulations is what’s preventing new ISPs or grocery stores from cropping up.
Overall in my opinion it’s a captivating video that lacks any substance, which is typical for politicans, but also disappointing because you don’t often get to hear them talk about something for over 10 minutes where they actually do have time to explain a plan properly.
If they could somehow make this data available to search engines. Maybe we can start being able to google random problems and actually find solutions again.
Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized
Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.
Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.
Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)