>because now you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux
Gonna have to quantify that. Cause I imagine if you did, you'd redact that statement. Redux is a very straightforwards and SMALL library that handles global state.
Its concept can be difficult to follow at first which may cause some to think it way more complex under the hood than it really is.
I don't think peoples complaints of YouTube are invalid at all.
But I think it is interesting how much credit these people that monetize YouTube don't give google at all.
Video hosting has always been expensive comparatively. They are large files. You tube stores multiple resolutions of your files.
YouTube hosting your video is free. You don't pay for it. These people that are bringing in $500 - $4,000 crying that 'youtube isn't giving me all my money' seem to also have a sense of entitlement in itself.
YouTube has a relationship with its creators. Creators get free video hosting, a video social platform and they can earn quite a bit of money doing it. YouTube in turns get a portion of the ad money too.
When YouTube demonetizes something they lose money too. They know their system can hurt their bottom-line in the end.
Understanding this is a business relationship between the two entities would probably make their attempts more professional. Maybe open a business that represents a large sets of these YouTubers instead of each one make a video about it. That way their collective views are significant chunk and they can apporoach YouTube as a professional entity.
>Video hosting has always been expensive comparatively.
Torrents seem to be doing it perfectly fine for free.
People keep speaking about YouTube as if its main function is video storage, while if fact the main thing they bring to the table these days is suggestions, search and a massive pre-established audience. If there was a way to plug into their search/suggestions/ads without giving away control of your video files, a lot of high-earning content creators would likely to do just that. However, there is no such option. I'm not aware of any reliable video search outside of Google.
>Understanding this is a business relationship between the two entities would probably make their attempts more professional. Maybe open a business that represents a large sets of these YouTubers instead of each one make a video about it.
But that's the thing. Content creators don't want a business relationship. The promise of Web 2.0 was that there will be no editors or publishers, just a generic UGC platforms. This idea is massively backfiring right now in all kinds of ways.
Broken Age from start to finish took less than three years to make and went over-budget but still managed to complete the game by creating the two parts into chapters to get early sales outside the original kickstarters.
People who have never managed or been part of managing big projects with deadlines don't understand that. They see the above as a failure rather than obstacles that they succeeded in getting over and releasing a moderate to good game.
Problem is when something crashes on Firefox it still tends to take everything with it. This is very annoying when developing something. Often when you have bad code as you are creating or changing things.
So for developing I still prefer Chrome. Besides that Firefox since quantum been very nice.
That isn't a very good argument. Just cause you downloaded something doesn't give you the rights to it.
If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now.
Oh, this art? I am selling it. Well I saw it on the internet, my computer downloaded, their servers fulfilled it. If they didn't want to hand over the rights they should've blocked me from viewing it.
That kind of argument is an argument I expect in a non-tech site with people making excuses. You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all.
The way the internet works doesn't create a vector that allows that. If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible.
Those smaller sites would lose to bigger sites that can get away with slower response times or ignore pre-checking anyways.
> If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now.
Piracy is someone intentionally breaking a known license contract. Software trials require contracts first. Either upon download or installation. You agree to a license before you use Windows. Those agreements are binding. The web also has systems in place for similar contract negotiation. If you don't use that, it's kinda on you. Some users will choose to use your content in the way you intended, others won't, and you have no recourse.
> You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all.
Unfortunately for you, it's already held up under law. There's a reason the big players are trying for new solutions than attempting to ban users from blocking them.
> If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible.
We already have that. Quite seriously. HTTP has the structure for authorisation, and the process for handling it if you're not. Not using that structure, is a choice that leaves you vulnerable.
This is a pretty ridiculous response. There have been compiled languages way before interpreter/jit ones and these didn't halt the advancement of programming and programming communities, especially the sharing code and ideas part.
Also you shouldn't need access to code to create your own solution. Many people have been reverse engineering or borrowing from ideas in the compiled world. When I copy something I like I don't typically look at their code, I focus on the functionality and break down what its doing so i can reimplement it.
The fact you are focusing on centralization is basically saying "i can't steal someone eases code". The web promised to be free and open and that had nothing to do with whether or not you could read the javascript.
Most modern javascript on site is rather unreadable due to being transpiled anyways. There is still an option to use plain javascript instead of WASM. Just like now you can use plain javascript instead of transpiling it.
Companies can develop big, bulky WASM-only framework with graphic primitives & so on, very much like Java applets, and effectively kill the openness of the web standards.
> have been reverse engineering
Reverse engineering some HTML is not difficult. Minified JS is much more difficult. A 50MB blob of WAMS is just too time consuming.
> The web promised to be free and open and that had nothing to do with whether or not you could read the javascript.
On the contrary, making it 100x times more difficult to understand what a website is doing is terrible for security, compatibility, inclusiveness (good luck making a braille terminal for WASM-only websites or using them on a very slow uplink)
There are people that lobby for closed source and distribute closed source, and there are people that lobby for floss and libre software. And then there are hypocrites.
Mozilla is bathing itself in it's image of standing for a free and open world. The truth is that it's business in "The Web" is creating the groundwork for a closed and non-free world. This hypocrisy cries out deafening.
A language being compiled or not has nothing to do with the web being free.
Like I said we can already pretty much transpile our code to practically speaking, an unreadable state.
Companies can already choose to make their code closed source and transpile it. If there goal is to make it more closed they can do that now.
WASM doesn't change that. People can still make their code open source, they can still write in plain javascript. Its really no different. Instead we are giving people options and the ability to have more performant apps in the ones that require it.
At least native applications are something static you can verify. With web 'apps' like, say, anything based on electron, the end user has no control about what code is run. Instead the 'app' just pulls down and runs whatever the company/etc wants you to run dynamically and differently every time with the permissions you gave originally.
Your mention of Electron is the perfect example of why this is no different for native apps. Of course, on mobile this is usually mitigated through app stores, but there is no reason similar mechanisms could be introduced for the web if this really turns out to be problematic.
Chrome browser is only 50% of Electron. The other 50% is a complete nodejs distribution which allows access to the OS filesystem, network, anything Java or .NET can do on a desktop... So no, it's not just a browser web app. Electron is absolutely native to the OS is runs on.
The only reason it's got all those permissions is because it is a native app, which can claim all those permissions. Sure, Electron app are browser wep apps marketed as a native application, but by definition, native apps can do everything Electron apps can do.
> A lightweight & simple alternative to lodash/underscore
Lodash full is 24kb.
Mout is 450kb...
Not light weight at all. The advantage is that its modular so your bundles would only include the libraries you require. Oh wait lodash does that. So Lodash is a more lightweight alternative to mout...
I keep hearing this but I made an account recently with no email verification. Recently as in one week ago. I put in a no email address actually. YOu can go sign up right now, leave the email field empty and hit next, you can do the whole sign-up process without an email.
Oh I know you can still do this; but the UX is deceptive about it. And one day they may just force the field to be “required”.
Anonymous posting is the core feature of Reddit, so if they kill that the site is dead. It’s also Reddit’s biggest problem with advertisers on two fronts: it prevents them from linking out to external DMPs for most users and it makes it easy to post content that is offensive to advertisers.
> retina screens and the only usable touchpad in laptops
I mean I don't have a side in this convo. But if you are gonna put up a argument at least make it not sound fanboyish.
Plenty of laptops with similar ppi (what makes retina...retina) and plenty with good touchpads.
Many reasons to choose different laptops including Apples, but those you listed the competitors have themselves. Apple just markets their retina displays as 'special' when its all about pixel density and most laptops have moved in the direction of offering comparable ppi.
> I mean I don't have a side in this convo. But if you are gonna put up a argument at least make it not sound fanboyish.
> Plenty of laptops with similar ppi (what makes retina...retina) and plenty with good touchpads.
If you're going to put up an argument at least make it sound informed. The best trackpads I've used in any other laptop manufacturer was "acceptable", and that's Microsoft's. Plenty with good touchpads? Not even remotely close.
As for retina displays, plenty of laptops with higher PPI, also plenty of laptops with scaling issues up the ass.
Gonna have to quantify that. Cause I imagine if you did, you'd redact that statement. Redux is a very straightforwards and SMALL library that handles global state.
Its concept can be difficult to follow at first which may cause some to think it way more complex under the hood than it really is.