burliman
Difference is those other networks actually make content thats arguably seen as worth paying for. YouTube recycles user content and barely pays those users for it. Yes you can say that they deserve your money for servers and whatnot, but you can’t compare YouTube with those other services you mentioned and expect people to cry big crocodile tears…
You will never get the sympathy for YouTube that you’re looking for. Not as long as the ads keep being so blatantly offensive and irrelevant, and while they continue to dangle their power over the users and content creators, who ultimately make them what they are.
No one cares about their hosting fees. You’re right that it’s expensive to keep the necessary servers and bandwidth, but you’re wrong that people will care because of the lack of care YouTube has shown. On the other hand, paying for something like HBO Max, for example, is a thousand times more justifiable. Look at the novel content they actually create. They also host that content, but that’s not why people pay.
I think people go to the ends of the earth to block ads that are offensive or irrelevant. Some people block any ad because of the history of offensiveness and irrelevance that ads from the majority of services have been. Ads can be those things for lots of reasons. Too many, too long, too often repeated, actually offensive, annoying, distracting, insulting to your intelligence, conflict of interest, against the grain of the content they infest, just to name a few… But instead of advancing that front, services like YouTube would rather just cram them down your throat, and then block you if you object. Ultimately YouTube needs users. Nothing works without the users. The ads only even make money because of the users…
They should be giving us massages and making our stay as pleasant as possible… instead they are power-tripping because they think we need their bullshit, but we don’t.
Driverless cars will have an impossible standard to live up to. California has 48.5 injuries per 100 million miles driven (and 1.4 deaths). Unless that is zero with driverless cars, then the public will see an unreasonable risk. Any single accident gets tons of press… I found it very difficult to find an objective injury rate for driverless cars. Probably because there are five levels of automation, and many of them allow human error to come into play. Also they are self reported by the driver companies.
Yeah, this incident and response makes more sense. But it is another case in point of the difficulties driverless companies will have. I drive a lot and I see the stupidest things. I’m sure we all have stories. With this story it is very easy to imagine a clueless driver doing the same.
But the best way to avoid crashes is to be predictable. Isn’t much more predictable than a bunch of self driven cars with no emotions.