This would mean YouTube will have to break compatibility with countless outdated Android / iOS apps, Smart TVs and other devices. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
> YouTube will have to break compatibility with countless outdated Android / iOS apps, Smart TVs and other devices
Minus smart TVs, this seems like the point of the policy change. (And even on the TVs, if they're watching without paying while blocking ads, that's purely a cost centre.)
If we enter Twitter as evidence into the record of yanking the cord on 3rd party apps getting a free ride off your company's hard work, then maybe Google has decided the negatives do not outweigh the positives.
You aren’t understanding. They can’t change the old unpublished APIs because it will break the old devices. We use those to get the videos without the ads.
What reason does YT have to NOT make changes that prevent those devices from working? Is there an avenue for these 3rd party devices to pay YT for their services? If these apps/devices are making a buck off of YT rent free, then they should be able to yank the cord whenever they want.
Your comment reads as if you feel that YT has some sort of obligation to continue letting 3rd parties make money from the work of YT without any compensation.
Device manufacturers not just use some private API or SDKs without making deal with Google. Except might be for Chinese noname brands from AliExpress.
All device manufacturers do have agreements with Google about support for their devices and such agreements can very well be for 10+ years or even for lifetime of the devices.
PS: Actually 10 years ago when Windows Phone was a thing Microsoft has tried to make their own YouTube client without agreement with Google and it was killed by Google almost immediately.
Google just dropped all third-party Google Home device support, leaving people with e.g. Lenovo Smart Displays twisting in the wind. It wouldn't be out of character for them to "alter the deal" w.r.t. all those old smart TVs and such.
> Should society be accepting of it as a side "gig economy" kind of job?
No, because in a "good" society, people should be able to find work that they're happy/willing to do that pays well enough that they don't need a "side hustle" to survive.
But it's not just about work/home balance. It's also about being in a financially sound position, in a strong enough relationship with the "right" person, to be able to have a child. And that's increasingly hard for young people today, with the cost of living being higher than ever, wage growth hitting a wall, and attitudes towards relationships changing.
Having a baby isn't as simple as deciding to do it.
The problem is that society has been moving in basically the exact opposite direction for quite a while now. Anyone married under 25 is seen as weird and rushing into something, and anyone with a child at that age is assumed to have gotten themselves there by accident.
As a newish parent (nearly two years), the only real costs I see are for childcare. Yes clothing and food costs something, but it's not that much (and plenty of people will give you old clothes if you ask). We share a bedroom, and it's not a problem. This can be solved by having the right support structures in place by the state. I live in an EU country, but my country doesn't do very well with this.
Although my SO does not work (they were studying before our child was born), we do not have family living nearby that can help with childcare, which seems to be how most people cope here. Ideally the state would provide free childcare to all families, regardless of whether parents are working or not. It should be at a high enough standard, that state childcare is the norm (like schools), not the exception.
> It's also about being in a financially sound position,
I'll completely agree with your point about finding the right person, which is absolutely true.
But honestly a lot of stable couples are less precarious than they think. Especially people in the tech industry. You're making more than 100k/year on your own, you're set. But from a bunch of conversations, they imagine sending their kids to a $200k/year college or read the worst possible stats about how much raising a kid costs, without understanding people make parenting work with so much less to no detriment of their kids. If anything, I'd argue being rich makes you more likely to mess up your kids but I should move on.
Instead, I think people should consider whether they want to raise a baby when they have a fraction of the energy they had when they were in their 20s. They should consider whether they want to raise a toddler when just stepping out of their car weird tweaks their ankle, making it hard to walk for a couple days. Or whether they want to stress about their kids while they have to start taking blood pressure meds for the simple reason of "it's genetics and you're 50, this is just how your body works now."
Obviously, if you can't pay your water bill, maybe don't have kids. But even then, if you're smart and kind, you could probably pull it off and the world would be better for it.
It varies on your standard of living and region. If both partners are in tech or equivalent then there usually isn’t a struggle but as soon as one isn’t, it can be tough in some regions to find sustainable living for the traditional American dream. Where I live (SV - peninsula) and for my age (30), I have no hopes of having children anytime soon in my current circumstance unless FAANG finally takes me in or I can get another startup to IPO. (As it seems wasting years of your life for one startup IPO wasn’t sufficient enough, sadly)
I couldn’t possibly imagine having kids earlier. Even now, it still seems like a pipe dream. And I have no interest in Ivy League schools or private elementary, etc.
I hope this is the case, however a lower barrier to entry also means those who could afford to clear the old barriers can come into this new space, leveraging the new technology in concert with their pots of money and make a bigger splash than any new player can afford. It wouldn't be the first time that a small creator has had their idea ripped off by someone with money, and be left in their shadow.
That said, it doesn't mean that those new creators couldn't still be "successful" in such a situation. Just that someone else with more money is still making more money than them.
Facebook has blocked any page that provides news, as defined by the code, rather than just organisations covered by the code:
core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or
b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level
Weather info & especially anything emergency-related is covered by that second definition.
The definition of organisation covered by the code is stupid & arbitrary anyway. It's heavily weighted towards existing incumbents (requiring $150K revenue), and makes things even harder for an independent trying to compete.
And almonds don't lactate. Do you call almond milk "almond-flavoured water"?
There's a reason people use existing "technically incorrect" product names to refer to replacement products like this. It's so people who are used to consuming the original products see the replacement as a replacement, on level footing with the original.
Almost no one is going to replace dairy milk with soy bean-flavoured water, and chicken patties with chicken-flavoured burgers. The latter sound like dodgy knock-offs and people don't want to put that kind of thing in their bodies.
Also, "chicken-flavored burger" isn't really accurate to what this is. It may be lab-grown, but it's still meat. A "chicken-flavored burger" sounds like a vegetarian patty with chicken-like seasoning and flavours.
Ignoring the news, and just expecting the "important" stuff to magically penetrate is a great way to live in wilful ignorance, and/or let people/governments/corporations get away with a lot of bad stuff that others around you have deemed insignificant.
I could probably name half a dozen things off the top of my head that would affect your opinion or behaviour towards various things in your daily life, that you aren't aware of because they aren't considered "important" enough.
And I guess if you're okay with indirectly supporting workplace sexual abuse, money laundering, unsustainable work and management abuse, the erosion of civil rights, and destruction of the environments, then sure, I guess it's not important.
So how is you watching the news going to solve all these last things that you mention? I also don't watch the news. Do you really think we don't know those things are happening?
News is entertainment. If you really want to get smarter, read books from people who are experts in their field.
Edit: if you do want to read a book, start with "Trust me, I'm lying". It will give you a whole new perspective on news reporting.
If something isn't actionable then is it worth taking up your attention? I agree with you that some news is worth consuming but that's only because I occasionally discuss it with friends.
I agree. If it's not actionable, then it's just adding to the doom. But not all of it is not actionable. And you definitely can't take actions based on information you don't have. Even just telling your friends about it is arguably action, because while it's not actionable to you, maybe it is to them, or maybe it's something you can take action on as a group.
Obviously finding a balance is essential, so you can be well informed and reactive, but also not drown in doom. I'll admit: it's a balance I haven't found, but I firmly believe living in a metaphorical hole isn't going to make anything better.
