Yes. Why not? If the 1st Video was your upload to begin with why shouldn't you be able to replace your video with a different Video?
This is a very useful feature for people since it would give creators the ability to fix errors in their videos without creating the confusion that happens when creators try to do this currently.
Every single time when I saw a reupload it had tons of comments saying something to the effect of "Didn't I see this before?" or "Didn't you upload this Yesterday?" and the creator commenting X times: "Sorry it is a reupload to fix Audio/Editing/Facts"
Can you then replace a John Carmack tech talk with a Amway recruiting video? Yes, but there was nothing stopping you right now from uploading that Amway video and simply calling it "John Carmack tech talk" anyways.
But now I can watch a correctly titled "John Carmack tech talk", send the link to a friend, and they'll wonder why I'm trying to recruit them to Amway.
Right now the system is so that I have sent links to friends and they replied: "Can't find it"
Both are minor things, but I am in favor of creators being in control over their videos. Especially since it would get used to correct accidental misinformation and things like that.
I just don't see much harm in the ability even if the video creator could completely switch content.
It’s not surprising. The people most interested in encryption want to trust nobody. That’s the goal of strong encryption, but as Ken Thompson says it’s not possible. Between the US Government and Moxie I’d trust Moxie but I’d rather trust neither.
Yes but Upwork wants a metric that doesn’t need a software engineer to adjudicate. If you say “this XHMTL validator works as specified because RFC 1913 was never formally accepted” it takes someone with a clue to figure out what you mean. Upwork would rather say “you types all day, you get paid.”
Still very easy for people to bypass. Just pushes the adjudication into the "interpret screenshot" layer. The screenshot can be a completely valid Photoshop mockup that looks exactly like the client's specifications for the Rails app they hired you for, showing that you pretended to do the work.
I'm guessing that that ploy would work once or twice before you got pushed off the platform anyway.
Same goes for a client that regularly claims the work is incomplete.
Between those companies developers have checked in tens or hundreds of thousands of exploitable bugs. It's not far-fetched to think that at least one of them might have been intentional.
The fact that the article says that “oil and tobacco” are the Bad Industries (that CS shouldn’t become like) says everything you need to know. There is no CS without oil.
In the cases I can think of the whole country is rich, but they have a large number of slave-workers. Not sure if the slave-workers are counted in their health statistics or just seen as property anyway.
