I’ve been paying for premium, basically because they’ve been sort of forcing to people with the ridiculous number of ads. I get zero ads injected. You’ll still get sponsorships that are part of the video done by the creator, which is now become a little bit more annoying. But at least it’s something that the content creator completely approves of and endorses. I can skip that part anyway.
I’ll probably cancel it soon, only because I need to stop watching so much of this stuff, and I need to get rid of things in life that I shouldn’t be paying for. Once I do that, I’ll never be able to watch YouTube again, because it was unbearable with the number of ads injected. I hate being reminded over and over that I am nothing but a consumer that they try to influence with ads over, amd over, and over, and over.
Off-topic, I recently got another free month of Amazon prime. I was watching some shows on there, and the ads are f’n annoying there too. I can’t believe they make people pay more now to remove the ads. I’ll never pay for Prime in any fashion.
I have paid for YouTube Premium for years and watch YouTube nearly every day and I have never seen an ad from YouTube (you still may see baked-in ads from the video creator but those can be automatically skipped with the SponsorBlock extension).
I do it this way, pay for premium and still use an ad blocker. I do it this way because there is no question whether or not I see ads. My conscience is clear because YouTube claims creators get a kickback when premium users watch their content.
For me it’s the best middle ground. I pay one bill, everyone gets paid.
I feel like you’re underestimating the power of SV moving fast and breaking things to learn quickly. Your attitude is why we’ve stopped hiring SMEs and PhDs in my underwater space launch / space elevator bio startup.
Those are sufficient excuses that prevent countries from signing free trade deals with other nations: we don't trust the health of your political system to sign a free trade deal with your nation.
In a world without an electoral college, I’m not sure you can say this.
Almost every state is winner take all in electoral votes.
I suspect there are a lot of discouraged voters who don’t vote, because they live in states where their opinion is overrun by the political slant of the state’s majority.
In a direct popular vote, their vote counts a lot more.
They don't support imperialism, but they also don't care enough to be against imperialism. They care about egg prices or their favorite culture wars more than about people dying elsewhere.
I think it’s more complicated - this feels like a psychology and biology issue.
Those things are naturally closer to them which then means they generate stronger emotions. Just intuitively, emotions fuel pretty much all decisions. I mean, if heroin didn’t feel good people wouldn’t do it. If fast food didn’t taste good people wouldn’t eat it. Conversely, negative emotion create patterns of behavior.
Our behavior is complex and choice is a spectrum. I don’t really choose to brush my teeth, it just kind of happens. I can stop, but I don’t. I look around me and nobody stops brushing their teeth. Perhaps brushing our teeth is so popular because it creates positive emotions. Less shame, less worries, more comfort.
I think, those in power harness this quite effectively.!
People have choosen to believe obvious lies because they wanted them to be true, not because they thought they were true. It's as much their fault as the politicians who lied to them.
They know enough to understand which way should their ignorance be pointed to support their worldview.
I've seen this countless times, I'm from eastern Poland, we had our own MAGA ruling for 8 years, and eastern Poland is where most of their voters come from.
When it benefits these people - they understand enough to know what the mainstream opinion is and they don't oppose it.
When it does not support their worldview - they suddenly stop believing the experts or forget what the expert opinion is.
Ignorance is not the root cause. It's a protection mechanism.
It's fascinating to watch at first, but after 8 years of this I'm just tired.
> They know enough to understand which way should their ignorance be pointed to support their worldview.
Again, you assume or are you god? Did you mind read everyone? Otherwise there's no way to really tell. Are the votes public? What people say might not be what they vote for.
> I've seen this countless times
As in you've looked at everyone in existence?
> Ignorance is not the root cause. It's a protection mechanism.
Again how do you draw this conclusion that 100% or at least >70% are like this. It's like you decide for them. So even if they're ignorant you're going to rule otherwise.
> It's fascinating to watch at first
This is worse than stereotyping. What's fascinating is listening to your reply.
> That's not what people voted for (agreeing with the government)
I could play your game (asking at every point how do you know). And we will get to the point that we both agree it's just our interpretations of facts.
Now that we established that - can we return to a regular discussion?
I live among such people. They are my family and my neighbors. We talk about this. My uncle has a company distributing pig feed. He's doing it for 20 years. He pays taxes. When our Polish MAGA introduced a tax reform that they reverted next month (becuse it was self-contradictory) - he defended them and argued his taxes will be lower when it was mathematically false.
He's not stupid. He have choosen no to understand something he's good at - because he wanted to preserve his political beliefs.
My father is a teacher. He argued previous government "never raised teachers' salaries" and that his beloved MAGA government did. In reality (and I know that because my wife also was a teacher at the time) - it was the other way around. I've googled the data on the official government website. He did not changed his mind.
These are 2 examples out of dozens.
It's like talking with flat-earthers. It's not that they never encountered anybody to teach them science. They did, and they actively choose to ignore it. In fact they have to know the mainstream position at least well enough to know what not to believe.
> And we will get to the point that we both agree it's just our interpretations of facts.
You're trying to prove something with a much higher requirement than mine. Where are the facts to begin with?
I'm saying it's "not" what they voted for, the equivalent of trying to prove "not guilty". So as long as there are suspicions that's easily done.
What you're trying to prove is that everyone is "guilty", which is a lot harder, e.g. you'd need a high majority in court.
> I live among such people.
> These are 2 examples out of dozens.
i.e. your reply is you live potentially in a bubble that might not even be statistically enough to prove any point and because of that you've concluded.
So if my friends at school all buy the same game, somewhere this game is popular in my country or even the world? For all I know it could only be my school or my state. E.g. many US states swing differently.
It did because that's exactly what people want, it's just that many people will tell you otherwise because they live in an information bubble and cannot believe that there exists voters outside of their bubble.
Same with opinions on HN. People here don't realize they're in a bubble and their opinions aren't representative for the masses. If you tell them that you get downvoted and flagged.
But the US doesn’t have direct presidential elections. It has an archaic, anti-democratic system called the Electoral College, which grants land in Wyoming greater relative weight than people in Texas.
Don't forget: Only about 2/3 of eligible voters voted. So those 1/3 who didn't vote, effectively voted for (or at the very least, condoned) the winner.
They didn't physically vote, but by not-voting, they are literally saying "I'm OK with whoever wins."
A huge number felt they had to vote for the lesser of two bad choices. I think many that voted for Trump were naive and are genuinely surprised at what they are seeing. At least I’d like to think so, despite what you might find on forums.
My point was that a company, and thus products and employees, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the government of which it is based.
Besides taking ethical actions, how do you signal that that you share a certain set of political values with your consumers and shareholders, instead of your "somewhat arbitrary" law makers. It is a big shift, and not always an option, to move physical factories, workplaces, etc.
I agree, but there are also cases where it is blatantly clear that companies are not only on Trumps side but taking initiative themselves to corrode our political culture, and people here in europe are too comfy to make a switch, apart from a lack of similar alternatives.
X and Meta are most obvious, and I don't know about google's involvement, but have been trying to convince people to move away from it for years. It's a similar situation with streaming services.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. We haven't blocked trade only with the segment of Iranians who support their government's nuclear program. We blocked trade with all Iranians, and put extra restrictions on specific government actors who enact nuclear policy.
Same thing with Russia. Or Syria. Or North Korea. In foreign affairs, all the citizens of a nation are collectively held responsible for the action of that state.
Which is to say: stop hedging. This is your government. You cannot wash your hands of this mess because you voted for Kodos. It's your mess, admit it, and see what you can do to fix it. The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.
I would definitely buy an iPad Pro that had regular MacOS on it like a MacBook. Otherwise I have had an iPad for about ten years and it’s been collecting dust for about 9.5 (will sell a cheap iPad 1, DM me!).
18f was self funded by billing agencies for cost savings, basically. It was basically free for the gov, and made up of highly technical people, many of whom came from top flight Silicon Valley or SV-adjacent companies. That is to say, neither cost nor technical skill nor efficiency were issues for 18f, which means that this wasn’t axed because of their cost…
For the most part you have exactly the same levers to pull at people in the United States, sans voting in elections, but most Americans don’t even do that, and some specific things that require a physical presence, like protesting at the White House specifically.
Setting aside that you can do things about this and effect change, caring about something isn’t the same as being able to affect that thing, so your reasoning “people outside the US don’t care because they can’t do anything about it” is a bit off.
You can prepare for negative second-order effects. Perhaps not every individual article is helpful for that but it’s hard to say they are not in aggregate.
But it is unclear how. America is now Russian ally and a danger/bully to other countries. So, America making itself more corrupt and consequently likely weaker or less performing may turn out either way for others.
Musk becoming richer and even more powerful is bad result tho.
Obviously riches in all countries are influencing politics. But Musk is next (probably never seen before) level. The guys with golden Kalashnikovs look like kids compared to him. Will Musk be the next president?
I feel they are actively shoring up the country’s foundations. For decades, since the Church committee in the 1970s and under Vice President Gore’s Reinventing Government initiative (which IIRC resulted in the removal of 100,000 government employees), disclosure of questionable or hidden programs was a core progressive value.
You're responding to someone who believes DOGE is getting rid of corruption in government while Musk is capturing contracts for his own companies. There's no point in responding to people like them. They aren't based in reality.
If the individual is living in a fantasy land, then any responses here will be discarded by them as fantasy themselves. Someone who legitimately believes that Musk is fighting corruption when Musk is also directing contracts to his own businesses is in a fantasy land.
If the individual is trolling, which could be the case here, then responding is just feeding the troll. It encourages them.
The better thing in both cases is to ignore them. At most, respond to the comment, but not the individual, with facts (like that Musk is directing contracts to his own companies) so that others don't fall into the same fantasy land.
> At most, respond to the comment, but not the individual, with facts
There is still a purpose for the response. It may not be for a particular reader, but there are other readers. It would be worth it to flag and move on if there is nothing to engage with but that’s not the case here.
> administrative state (created during FDR) is going away
Created by FDR through acts of the Congress. DOGE is ironically recapitulating the lawlessness that tanked Sourh Africa’s economy.
Also, we’re seeing a breathless expansion of federal executive power. The administrative state isn’t going away. It’s being subsumed. The size of the government is being increased, not decreased—that’s why the GOP budget calls for $2 trillion in new deficits over ten years.
One can celebrate cost cutting. But other than USAID, there is no sign anything durable is being done. The power of the central government is being expanded in ways that should be obviously problematic for anyone thinking ahead: next cycle, a Dem President can just cancel student debts by firing everyone in loan collections and shredding the loan documents.
