What a load of nonsense.
joshhsoj1902
joined 2 years ago
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)
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?
Solar in some cases can actually address the [over exaggerated] concerns regarding EV charging. By bringing power generation closer to where the power is being used, there can be less load on the long distance transmission lines. In some cases it can also reduce the load on local transformers.
But all of that is mostly irrelevant, the transition to EVs will happen over the next 30 years. Even if we weren't looking to move to EVs if we ignored the current grid we would be in trouble. But like anything we'll upgrade parts slowly as needed.