I would argue quite the contrary. NoSQL DBs got through their hype cycle and are now a standard part of stacks, but SQL (especially via Postgres) has re-emerged as the golden standard for the bulk of data needs.
Especially when companies over-provision their databases. Partially because the jump from cheap-ass to mid-tier is a massive increase in capacity.
Then you can offload stuff to the DB engine (as it should be), making everything more efficient, less data going between DB and App layers is good for everyone.
Also you get to do cool SQL shit nobody understands and you become invaluable =)
Unless your role is DB-specific, at which point people stare at you blankly as you’re raging about B+trees and sort buffers, and then ignore you when you tell them for the Nth time that they should refactor their schema.
Realistically a Cessna single prop is roughly $100k (average between good condition used and some new ones). A Ukrainian interceptor drone is about $2k + cost of munition. And the Cessna requires an airfield, so it is geo-fenced, while an interceptor drone can take off from flat land or the back of a truck.
People need to wake up and realize the economics of war just changed by several orders of magnitude.
In WWII terms they come as a function of aircraft production capability as the stategy was to keep putting fresh young faces in trainer cockpits and advancing everybody that didn't crash after a quick run down of controls and a couple of paired instructor flights.
I had a couple of aunts that were both members of the UK/AU Women's Auxiliary Air Force (1939 - 1949) and they each had rudimentary training for spitfires, heavy bombers, jets, etc that came down to mere hours and "see how you go".
> I had a couple of aunts that were both members of the UK/AU Women's Auxiliary Air Force (1939 - 1949) and they each had rudimentary training for spitfires, heavy bombers, jets, etc that came down to mere hours and "see how you go".
Worth noting that their mission was delivery flights with the produced aircraft (a handful of them saw combat, because if you're flying a fighter plane into a warzone your guns might as well be loaded, but it wasn't the main aim). Those who were intentionally flying into combat got a little more training AIUI.
And recovery flights of downed / incorrectly landed (wrt airfield) aircraft, crossing active zones while unarmed, international delivery across the globe, and officially no fighting stuff ... although that was somewhat divorced from practice in the asian theatre.
Still, thanks for chipping in with a "no true Scotswoman" pilot variation - of course bombardiers got training in sighting, navigators in map reading .. largely at that time combat pilots got experience or got dead while exposed to all the barrack room theory about tactics that may or may not survive enemy contact.
It's not a product where you are the user. Your attention is the product being sold to advertisers and the videos are a harvesting/production mechanism.
It is not in the interests of either YT or the advertisers to allow you to opt out of features that are proven to be lucrative for eyeballs.
I’m a Premium subscriber. I don’t see ads, and YouTube added a feature so I can easily skip in-video sponsored sections.
It seems like the incentive for Premium subscribers should be to keep them happy, so they keep paying, and minimize how much they watch, as they’ll be a cheaper user using less bandwidth.
> YouTube added a feature so I can easily skip in-video sponsored sections
That feature benefits YouTube, too. Maybe even more than its value as a Premium feature. It makes it so that viewers can skip the ads the creator was paid to make without YouTube getting a cut of the proceeds, pushing down the value of those ads.
Hasn't this always been the case? If a movie or show features product placement, a TV station playing said movie/show doesn't get any of the proceeds from that advertisement, do they?
This is just the pros having more tact than amateurs, and actual writers. I do see some “influencers” that do more of a pure product placement. They just happen to be drinking a specific energy drink in every video where it sits perfectly with the label out. I see some YouTubers trying to get better at integrating the ad into the video, but most of them can’t be bothered to write and record a custom script.
That said, Subway often seemed to get pretty heavy with its product placement. The last season of Chuck had a good amount of this, even what was essentially an ad read right in the middle of an episode by Big Mike. On Community they personified Subway and based a whole episode on him. In the Office they brought in Ryan Howard to say “eat fresh” over and over again, and even called out that it was for Subway to make sure it didn’t go over anyone’s head. Subway was big on sponsoring the last seasons of struggling shows with loyal fanbases, and littering the episodes with Subway product placement to the point where it became a plot point. I remember Zachary Levi (Chuck) tweeting out to ask everyone to go buy some Subway before the finale. It sounded like if Subway saw enough of a spike in buying from the sponsorship, they might fund yet another season.
I know, but I don't see a fundamental difference. If TV networks are happy to pay for a show that also gets advertising revenue from product placement, I don't see why YouTube would not be happy to deliver ads and pay some percent of that to a channel that displays its own ads. Especially given that YouTube has much, much less cost per video than a traditional network, which can only broadcast one program at a time.
It's still a fine argument for that case, you've just moved yourself out of it. They still have an incentive to keep you addicted to the service, which is basically the point of Shorts, "so you keep paying us money to satisfy your addiction" instead of the first case's "so you keep watching ads that pay us money to satisfy your addiction"
The thing that is funny about it is at least with the mixes, it does actively make me engage less because there are videos I would click on if they were not being tied into a mix, but because they are I actively choose not to open the video and let the song play.
YouTube has multiple different products. YouTube as a company do not call your attention a product. There isn't a product team that is in charge of people's attention as a product.
In fairness, the claim is that all the Iranians are offering their own lives for the poster's goals.
Of course, that only brings us to, "It's easy to claim others are offering their lives for your goals."
I guess it's probably best to just realize everything you see on the subject of any given war is probably propaganda. And judge the value of it through that lens.
I think a lot of people can apply common sense and realize that no real person is rooting for their family getting bombed to bits. And hopefully realize that posters who make up such persons are spreading vile propaganda that dehumanizes them so that there won’t be too much opposition to the massacre of civilians.
You got downvoted a bit but I upvoted. You're clearly being descriptive in your statements, not prescriptive. I tend to agree that this is how things are now.
Our country is not being run by the rule of law right now.
Well, that's not the way context works and it's dishonest BS. You wrote "You got downvoted a bit but I upvoted. You're clearly being descriptive in your statements, not prescriptive." -- no, they were prescriptive from the start, and the prescription and the goalpost moving and wool-over-eyes pulling is why they were downvoted.
reply