Ottomateeverything

where it won't obscure passwords. But, surprise, it will obscure DRM content

Yeah, we all know where the priorities really are.

How have our consumer protections gone so fucking far.

Why not just sort me out of the Mailing-list?

Because that would cost their time instead of yours

I have never in my life seen someone refer to CRT TVs as crtvs and it's really fucking with my head lmao

The thing is, there are versions of all of these (Cast, any number of messaging clients) that have broader compatibility already. They just tend to be locked out of Apple's ecosystem and Apple has its own versions that lock everyone else out of there's.

These systems would be so much more friendly for the consumer if everyone just worked together but this insistence on keeping these things siloed just makes it worse for literally everyone.

Wanna share your video on the TV at my house? Oh you have an iPhone? Oh, Yeah your gallery can't Cast. I want to share a video at yours? Oh, you have an Apple TV so I can't Cast to it and Airplay doesn't exist in my gallery or OS.

This only hurts consumers. And the only people it's helping is the manufacturers selling you Google TV/AppleTV via suckers that buy both.

This is the most asinine approach IMO.

"Let's release a worse product. Hey, no one likes it. Okay, let's spend money on games so THEY can essentially force people to use our software. Hey, still, no one really likes it. Okay, let's try to give away stuff for free. Hey, people use our thing for the free stuff but still no one likes it for any other reason."

They just keep spending money to up their numbers and their product is still missing features and inferior to competition. They spend big money on exclusivity, but that is only temporary - if that's how you're getting your customers, you're going to have to keep doing it forever to retain them. If people only use you for free stuff, you're just going to have to keep giving stuff away at a loss to retain them.

This model is not sustainable. You're not doing anything that aligns value with your customers besides just throwing free stuff at them. That's not a business.

What's especially sad to me is they could literally have just spent that same money to improve their launcher and have an actual product. Instead they've invested in temporary stats. They're essentially bankrolling other devs on games with temporary popularity instead of in their lifelong product.

Using other games exclusivity as sway into your ecosystem only works when you have a good product the person would be interested in but they haven't seen it yet. EGS is currently something people are essentially coerced into using but no one really gets any real value out of it other than "well I couldn't buy this game anywhere else"

Tell that to Japan. One of the highest spenders. Still stuck in perpetual de flation for over 20 years at this point.

It's not that simple.

Same could be said about your post. It's very "haha I have a gotcha" vibes.

Yes the government deletes money. And they also create money. That doesn't mean they do or have to do the same amount of each. They can and do create more than they delete. They're not funding programs and then making sure they delete the same amount in your taxes. That's not how modern economics work.

Yes, they both create and delete money. That doesn't mean that the two processes need to be equal or balanced.

Your purchases do, or someone is owed their portion of the transaction. That's not the case when the government is writing bonds or appropriating funding to programs. They can create money freely, regardless of the tax they collect. Taxes serve a different purpose.

Yes this is all true, MMT is a theory. It's in the name. Yes, it's controversial.

But those points have nothing to do with the validity of the statements I made, including the ones you quote. It's a very broad economic theory covering how things should be done etc etc.

My point is not founded on MMT, I referred to it as a "look this stuff up by starting here". That's why it's only mentioned in the edit. The mere fact that this is an even remotely acceptable implies the statements I made is valid - otherwise MMT would fall apart at its seams.

Taxes funding things is indeed a myth, and they're essentially a money void. Go read up on those specifics if you want to get into it. The video I linked has a literal explanation of this like 30 seconds later. When congress approves programs, they just allocate new funds to it, and move on. There's no digging up taxes to point towards it.

You could begin making an argument it has implications for the validity and reliability of the sovereign currency, but it has no real relationship to taxes. That's just not how modern economics work anymore.

Not at all. Look up MMT. Modern monetary theory and economics are well beyond "spend taxes to fund programs". Governments that issue debts in their own made up currency don't need to "spend" money, they just give money to the programs they support.

Well if you really want to get technical about it.... No programs or spending are really funded by taxes anyway, the government just says "OK" and the numbers in the bank accounts of the companies implementing said program go up. Taxes funding things is just a myth. Taxes just delete money. So technically, nothing is funded by taxes and taxes are just a money void.

Edit: People seem to be down voting because they think this is tinfoil hat BS or something. It's not. Look up modern monetary theory. Governments with fiat currency don't need to collect money to pay for things. They just invent and issue more currency. See this video: https://youtu.be/75udjh6hkOs?amp%3Bt=1628

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he's making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they're doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn't stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he's repeatedly flaunting credentials that don't change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.