No, the reason is that to-date there had not been a global platform available. AirBNB benefits from a massive global economy of scale. I can use the same platform in America, Germany, Australia, Bulgaria.
Correct, VRBO has been around a while. They do not aggressively go after getting units in towns that do not allow short term rentals, like AirBnB does.
Looks like 1440p gaming at a reasonable budget is finally here. Now we just need some good (non-curved) Nvidia-approved adaptive sync cards at 32" 1440p IPS.
Youtube just needs to increase the barriers before a channel can be monetised. Then, with a smaller pool of channels, they need better human review to prevent exactly things like this from happening.
If they are worried about the costs of a lot of non-monetised videos, just limit non-partner channel quality to 720p30, until the channel is made partner or coughs up something like $100.
Then, they need to allow micro-pledges in addition to likes. I would happily buy a pack of 100 pledges for $10 (ie. one pledge = 10c) and tip that towards the videos that I've really liked. Youtube could take their cut but it would represent a great extra revenue stream for content creators, and the number of pledges made public.
> Then, they need to allow micro-pledges in addition to likes. I would happily buy a pack of 100 pledges for $10 (ie. one pledge = 10c) and tip that towards the videos that I've really liked.
This is the right way to support creators, one that doesn't introduce all the messed up incentives generated by ad-based content monetization.
But it won't work, for the same reason it never has. People associate online content with "free". Getting them to pull out a card is close to impossible. This is doubly so when you consider that it's mostly kids and teens spending hours watching these videos.
Most adults who can pay their way aren't watching toy unboxings or some influencer's 'daily vlog'. Kids and adults alike also are unlikely to adjust to a system where they need to remember to pledge or tip. They are watching tens of videos per day, how would they make that decision?
You can pay for YouTube Premium. It lets you watch the videos ad-free. I assume that the creators still get paid for my views, since I'm paying for the ad-free experience. I don't even have to bother choosing who the money goes to. Just watch their videos and they get a few cents.
This would simply replace one way to monetize channels with a different one. What would this change? (Except allowing the advertisers to better sleep at night)
The problem is not the videos being there, its the advertisments next to them.
Youtube simply needs to move to a proper gatekeeping model around monetisation, requiring human review and biannual review checks. Start it at 10,000 subscribers to avoid being overwhelmed. Prompt once-off approval for 'viral' trending videos from new channels (even if the advertising money goes completely to Youtube).
The internet is maturing and existing gatekeeping models are too lax. Same thing with games allowed onto Steam. Now any idiot with a phone can upload something - previously you needed a computer and decent knowledge to do that.
Limiting new uploads from new accounts to 720p30 max until they hit 1,000 subs or pay a $100 'starter fee' will save on storage and processing fees.
I don't understand why Youtube (and other tech platforms) sets the barriers to entry so low, then inundate themselves with work. Simply raise the barriers until your human-approval processes can handle the volume.
What does monetization have to do with any of this, except as a hook to attack youtube and bait advertisers to respond? Monetization is entirely irrelevant to the problematic issues at play.
and really if you don't intent to have ads run on your content, you shouldn't use Youtube. Setup a Peertube instance. YouTube is just too big and content creators that are up and coming should see if they can take control over their content instead of depending on Google, which is just a new version of NBC/CBS/ABC at this point.
I don't hire Indians as freelancers or employees. Whenever I post a Freelance role, I can be sure that I will get at least 1-2 generic applications from Indians. Usually they are part of some cohort of other IT workers - so even if I accepted their offer, I would have no idea who my information was being exposed to or who the work was actually being done by.
Cheating and dishonesty is part of the culture, sadly - to the extent that parents will even climb school buildings to pass cheat notes to students during exams:
Part of this is the bodyshop-encouraging nature of the H1B and other 'skilled' visas around the world. Limits should be placed to ensure that only 20% of all visa types can be given to any country, to avoid one country completely monopolising the visa type, and creating positive feedback effects (ie. Indians hiring other Indians or helping eachother game the system). Right now 76% of all H1B visas are taken by Indian workers which I think partly represents the scheme's failure.
You can not generalise the whole India by reading one post. There are many Indians CEO's who are running the big companies and are well qualified.
Generalising the whole culture based on post is not right. You should give some one chance and some Indians are very talented and extremely hard working than anyone else you find.
Every business is gaming system even Amazon is gaming the system.
Its not one post. Indians favour other Indians, to the exclusion of Americans and Europeans in general. I've seen it in IT, in retail, in trucking, in America and in other mass-immigration previously European societies (Australia). Even the largest companies (Infosys) engage in Visa fraud and discrimination:
Indian CEOs and managers are popular with boards because they will often ruthlessly pursue a corporate agenda without a brotherly spirit for (American) coworkers or citizens.
Americans and those descended from Europeans have been living in open, civil societies for thousands of years. Most of the world is not like that - in-group preference and close kinship rules. Outsiders will exploit our societal structure for their benefit, and we need to be at least aware of it, and penalise it as necessary. China's current corporate espionage effort (and the resultant trade war) is another example.
My mother was there in the 80s (with my father, on a holiday) and complained about being groped and harassed by men, and the poor quality of food and water. No desire to ever visit or to have much to do with the people from there. The Indian men I've met in clubs and bars have been as unwanted as the job applicants.
People said the same thing to me about Morocco. And Cuba. And Bolivia. That I would be harassed by men and get sick from the food & water. Everything I had been told was wrong. They were some of my favorite places to travel because they were so different from anything I had experienced before.
What you call "cheating and dishonesty" most of the world's population thinks of as nothing other than valuing the good of self and family ahead of that of strangers.
Adults who treat strangers as well as family are scarce indeed in this world, even within societies where the principle is universally inculcated in children by all of church, school and family.
If what you say of Indian culture is true -- well, such is the world norm.
>What you call "cheating and dishonesty" most of the world's population thinks of as nothing other than valuing the good of self and family ahead of that of strangers.
And who said that that's noble?
If everybody did the same and had no moral limits of putting "the good of self and family ahead of that of strangers", then society would be a hellhole.
In fact, it would also come to bite them and their family in the ass too, because society would be a hellhole for them as well. Others can play the game of putting "the good of self and family ahead of that of strangers" as well, and to them its yourself and your family who are the strangers.
>Adults who treat strangers as well as family are scarce indeed in this world
You don't have to "treat strangers as well as family" to not cheat in exams.
You can still give your money to family and none to strangers, take care of family members in sickness and not strangers, protect family members when they're under attack but not strangers, give house and shelter to family members and not to strangers, etc.
Cheating exams and stealing someone's place (that they were actually worth it) doesn't imply you have to "treat strangers as well as family".
And how about caring about your family and kids enough to give them principles, and not make them cheaters, liars, cowards, and beggars who only value themselves and/or their family, and are otherwise useless weight to society?
What is unfortunate is that making moral decisions has a price. If you are trying to give the best life possible to your children, the price of honesty may be too high.
Instead, you may try to give your children a good enough life so they will be able to be the person you wish you could be. Children, here, can mean literal children, nieces, or close family friends who you want to be better than yourself.
Just saw this. The legacy to your children is to sacrifice for them, be honest with them about what you did, and trust them to do better than you were able to do. Hopefully, the advantage you give them will be enough they can start making the system more fair.
It's ugly, but honor and honesty are things you need to be able to afford.
If your choice was to cheat on an arbitrary test or not be able to afford medicine for your child, it gets sticky.
Handicap to what? Certainly not material wealth. Morals aren't the first thing on your mind when you are trying to claw your way out of abject poverty.
When taken to an extreme, self-preserving behaviors may be considered enablement - something actually harmful to the growth and ultimate potential of an individual in certain contexts. The ultra-wealthy dynasties to an extent practice both nepotism and meritocratic beliefs within their private lives. People rarely seem to think that coddled children (aside from perhaps literal royalty) are a net positive across cultures and history, for example. I have “people of means” relatives but they have not been a material factor in my successes (nor failures) and while they may help family to some extent, it is well understood how entangling money and family can ruin both things and the policy is to assist where it makes sense long-term but that earning your place is important for both family honor and sustainability. Lying / cheating has a time and place (primarily to save one’s family from peril or to correct injustices and wrongs against the family) but when it comes to measuring raw merit at least my family to my understanding, despite many old world tendencies, does not compromise here.
Are you really equating dishonesty and valuing family over strangers? Do you believe there's no way to value family over strangers, without cheating and being dishonest?
It is thanks to racist attitudes like this that I changed my name from an Indian one to an American-sounding one. And whaddaya know, my callbacks shot way up.
I'm not cheating anyone, just trying to do an honest job, but attitudes like this hold minorities back. Because when you say this about an entire nationality so freely, what do you think about blacks? What about Chinese? What about Mexicans? It is much more politically incorrect to hold stereotypical views of visible minorities who have fought and are fighting for their rights in American society. Indians? Too many people feel free to shit on them both on anonymous forums as well as in popular culture.
Good on you mate. Is it possible that we have had different experiences and have applied to different companies at different times? I've worked a lot in the Midwest in the medium-sized sector where there was a definite stereotype of Indians, and it was not a positive one.
Someone who is applying to Google in current_year is obviously in a different position. Not to mention other variables like a degree from Stanford etc, or being born in the US etc.
Obviously I am not saying that having an Americanized name is a requirement. I'm just saying that in the absence of other redeeming factors (I am no genius and have no patents to my name) it was a speedbump in the early selection process.
> It is thanks to racist attitudes like this that I changed my name from an Indian one to an American-sounding one. And whaddaya know, my callbacks shot way up.
Ah, brings tears to my eyes :)
It's amazing how true this is (applies to most minority groups). With my native name, a lot of companies don't even seem interested in sparing a second look.
With the Americanized version, I've had no problems at all landing interviews (and getting hired!).
You should be doing this anyway as part of your integration into the culture. East Asians are smart - they name their children Jason Wu, Lucy Wang, Winson Ho from birth.
> East Asians are smart - they name their children Jason Wu, Lucy Wang, Winson Ho from birth.
Most examples I know of that actually have both a westernized and a non-Westernized name, and quite a number that I've known who used the Westernized name primarily in public as children now use the non-Westernized name as adults.
(Also, a few that I know that use Westernized names have stereotypically Black Westernized names, which retains the advantage in parsing/pronunciation of Westernized names in general, but not the social advantages of stereotypically White names.)
Whenever I post a Freelance role, I can be sure that I will get at least 1-2 generic applications from Indians
One web site I worked with didn't even have to post a job. It had a public upload form for people to submit travel pictures. It was overwhelmed by photos of Indians holding their resumes.
I assume some clever person wrote a script for this.
Under the license raj/socialism, before Indian opened doors for liberalization, the only way for 99% of Indians to make a good living was to get a government job. As Indian population boomed, the competition for even sweeper jobs (which provide retirement, decent salary, even free housing) became fierce. So, the government started a new rule: every candidate who applies for any govt job has to pass 10th grade (these exams are conducted by every state government).
This has led to new minimum for anyone who wants a job: pass 10th grade exam. Hence, cheating. Why do insist on 10th grade for sweeper jobs? Why insist on 10th grade for army soldiers?
This is like in America, where every one insists on BA/BS. Then you see lots of shitty colleges who are making like bandits through loans backed by the government.
Overpopulation. Too many people, not enough resources to support them. 600m Indians without proper access to water. Better access to contraception and changing social attitudes needed - the expectation that if you are impoverished you should have no children and save your money to improve your wellbeing, for example.
As an Indian, I completely agree. I don't consider anyone with Infosys, CTS, Wipro, etc on their resume. If they worked at startups in India, I'll consider them. I'm usually very skeptical of the technologies and skills they list on their resume. Most of them don't write any code and just do project management. They try to bullshit their way to full-time jobs to escape from the company that's holding them hostage in the US.
Death-cycle. Fewer petrol stations, fewer mechanics, fewer sales stores, fewer places where they are allowed to be used.
But, its not happening fast enough. We need to ban fossil-fuel powered non-commercial vehicles starting from 2021. We have the technology, we just need a massive ramp-up of manufacturing and production.
Limit any individual country (India or China for example) to a maximum of 10% of the total visa allocation each.
Right now India gets 76% of all H1B visas, so Indians know the system inside and out, and hire other Indians. Tech companies are calling out for female workers, and most of these Indian migrants are also male.
Take it to 10% from any country max, and heck even require that 51% of the visas must be given out to women, and you will see tech companies scour the globe for talent, rather than all the visas just going to Indian body shops. Under such a change you could even increase the total number of visas issued, since the whole scheme would be less rorted and more socially accepted.
In every large company there are always excess personnel, or departments or individuals who are not performing. I'm sure there are other large companies that semi-regularly fire a single digit % of their workforce, but because they are not games companies it doesn't hit the news.
The redundancies are mostly in 'publishing and esports', by the way.
The planet is going to be soon full of 9 billion humans, many desperately hungry and thirsty.
Africa and West Asia is the sole source of this increase. We need an urgent program to strip away food aid and replace it completely with education for women, family planning, and incentives for sterilisation and not having any or only one child.
Additionally the West needs to disallow all immigration and refugee settlement from poor countries. We should not provide a pressure release valve for overpopulation, nor harvest the few human resources that would otherwise help develop and modernise these countries.
I would rather have millions of insect, plant and animal species still alive than billions of excess humans clinging to life via destructive subsistence agriculture.
As child mortality drops, so do birth rates. The effect just lags a bit as people change their behaviour. Healthy secure people will have less babies, because they don't need to have so many.
Letting a small number of people die of hunger is not going to change that equation. In fact it may have the opposite effect.
And food aid is a small minority of all aid. Long term programs to build local capability are already the vast majority of money spent.
If this was the case then populations wouldn't be expanding - too many people would be dying before reaching reproductive age.
Its simpler than that. Women in many parts of the world have no agency, and no access to contraception. Change those two things (this should be the REAL battle of feminists) and you will go a long way to solving overpopulation.
This is authoritarian might makes right nonsense. It's incompatible with the UN Charter, national and individual self-determination, and the world's religions.
Before global trade, wealthy countries became wealthy through population growth. Today most every wealthy country has low or negative native birth rates, depending on immigration to shore up their economy. Japan's lost decade is an example of negative birth rates along with no immigration.
Japan is interesting though because society hasn’t collapsed, people there still have a high quality of life. The main issue they seem to have is the government took on too much debt. Whether that is a problem is questionable because most of it is held by the Japanese.
The problem with that estimate is they assume the birth rate won't change. Given how it has decreased in developed countries, a similar decrease should be expected as education levels for women increase in the developing world.
Hey dwd, your link suggests that fertility rate is indeed on the decline to around 2 children per woman, whereas it's higher that currently, especially in less developed parts of the world. That doesn't contradict the video by Hans Roslin, does it? The video doesn't mention birth rate as such, but he does mention that the number of children is not expected to change. I know from his other presentations that he does (did) indeed expect the fertility rate to fall to a little more than 2, as it does in every developed country.
The decrease due to an aging population is a major factor.
The change in birth rate will further compound that decrease. There are also other factors such as changes in lifestyle where increasing numbers of younger generations are foregoing parenting all together.
Kenya is a crime hotspot with GDP per capita of $1,500. Average IQ is 80.
I don't think people there care about privacy when they are struggling to avoid being robbed and to put a roof over their heads. If these measures can make Government and policing more efficient, than so be it.
First one to scale wins.