That might be true, but one of my use-cases for YouTube is listening to music, over a tablet, while I shower
So these 15-minute "ads" pretty much lead to the situation that halfway through my shower I won't be listening to music anymore, but rather some tutorial on how to best light a photoshoot or a "documentary" how Hezbollah is destroying Europe.
Don't get me wrong here: They can have their ads, but throwing 15-minute ads between videos that average out at around 3-8 minutes just feels like a very bold choice.
And it's not like watching that 15-minute ad means you won't be bothered by them for a while, you can watch it and after the next 3 minute song, there will be yet another ad.
Eh. YouTube isn't a very good platform for music, and it's even worse if you aren't paying for the premium service. Why wouldn't you use something like Spotify?
If your use case is using a video streaming service to listen to music then perhaps you should consider using something else instead of fighting against the tide. Don't get me wrong, I do the same from time to time, but typically when I listen to music I'm not loading up YouTube...
The dynamic playlists actually make YouTube a pretty decent music streaming service. I can find a song I like and just create a "mix" out of it, featuring similar songs, with just 1 click.
Having the actual music video with the music is also a very nice extra, some of these can make a song like 10 times as good.
If the YouTube premium wouldn't be so expensive (asking 16€ per month over here) I'd already signed up just for getting ad-free music.
I've gotten some 20+ seconds unskipable ads. That's the moment when I simply switched to MPV for watching youtube videos as the ads keep squeezing through every adblock filter I've tried once in a while.
Block the ads. You have every right to do so. There is zero obligation to watch ads. If a company like Google can afford to operate a service like YouTube, then putting it up in the first place is the cost of doing business. I happily block ads on all devices I use and am in control over, even at work.
Pi-hole, uBlock Origin (even kills the adblock detectors), Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, Tracking Token Stripper, Webmail Ad Blocker, etc.
Ads. What ads? You have a VPN set up on your home network, you can pass your mobile phone through it so as not to get ads even while away.
Haven't found a good way to do that on my tablet (iPad), yet.
I have tried adding known ad-networks to my router-blocklist, it does not seem to impact YouTube at all.
I guess I really gotta look into building myself a Pi-hole.
If everyone paid for youtube, they'd still show you ads every five minutes and harvest your information. Then people would be telling you that you have to suffer this because you don't pay for the bonus package.
Ah, here I am, setting under the blanket and drinking a cup of tea with lemon, watching a rocket 9600km away from me that's about to go to space in few minutes.
On just a small side note to remind our selves: Projects that didn't receive well in HN doesn't necessarily mean that HN didn't find it promising/useful or ignored it. It could have been posted at times when participation is low (e.g midnight), for example, so nobody actually saw it. Or people simply just forgot to upvote it, and it went unnoticed in the flood of too many other submissions.
I remember that I posted an article that I wrote to HN someday, and it got only 10 votes. Just a day later, some other guy posted MY article and got around 320 votes. I think it's just luck sometimes.
The thing is - if the premise is true that sex workers had an active role in preventing aids, then it's pretty easy to see that sex workers are predominantly low-status women and hence that their role and status make this a more extraordinary achievement.
Calling a transgender person "a transgender" and a group of transgender people "transgenders" is similar to calling an Indian person "an Indian" and a group of Indian people "Indians".
I've yet to see any rule on such language apply across all LBGTQ populations without issue. Don't speak with such authority on issues which has no authority.
I've found that true for many things though which don't make sense if you put men instead of women or white instead of black. Like "This entrepreneur group is for women only", change women to men it becomes extremely sexist. I guess that's just how the world works.
Theres a reason minority groups are singled out in those sentences. Those minorities do not have equal amounts of traditional forms of power.
It's like saying that a political change could not have happened without it's grassroots supporters. It also happened because of politicians, but that doesn't matter, and it's not interesting - because 100% of political changes involve politicians (even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming through it.) The involvement of grassroots supporters in some particular one is a noteworthy exception.
People dont find the singling out of any group to be an accepted popular opinion, even though it is, for some groups.
The consensus neglects the majority and minority powers of different areas. But I find the power imbalance to be a more encapsulating definition of in/sensitivies
If 99% of the time, only politicians are involved in drafting and passing a law, and 1% of time time, grassroots organizers and politicians are involved in passing a law, would you say that it's fair to describe one of the 1% laws as only possible with grassroots involvement?
Do what you like. You’re the one who started with describing themselves as "extremely pissed" over the subtitle. I know you might not believe this, but women in some parts of the world are still treated as minorities in 2018. Pointing that out, doesn’t damage their position.
I do agree that the subtitle is a a mindless platitude. Of course the spread of a sexually transmitted disease through heterosexual populations in India couldn’t have been prevented without the participation of 50% of the sex at. But again, I can’t even muster an eye roll over it. It’s dumb, but there;s dumb shit everywhere. My position is to ignore it and move on.
The thought that someone is "extremely pissed" about a trite and trivial girl-power cliche is pretty silly to me. That’s so much energy to spend on something so dumb.
Who’s got the time for that?
But whatever, it’s a Sunday, you can spend it how you see fit. If being extremely pissed at a throwaway line vacuously giving credit to women is what you want to do today then go for it.
Have a happy Sunday fella! (You know, or not, depending on what you’re looking for)
Why? There are sex workers, and there will always be. Even in jurisdictions where it is prohibited, it is merely pushed underground and continues, but with less protections and chance to mitigate downsides.
You might as well then have a subtitle" It wouldn't have happened without humans".
I don't see what point you're trying to make. If I chose to switch a word in one of your sentences with what's usually considered its opposite, then used that substitution to accuse your sentence of not making any sense, would you think I'm making a valid point?
The problem being that forked projects rarely get much traction. Look at Devuan. Only the very hard core Debian fanboys moved over. Sure, it's nice not having systemd, but the project will never have the user base and developer support that its parent project enjoys. Maybe, though, with RH being bought out, people will take a second look. I've always favoured Debian over RH for servers, as the upgrade path is dead simple and almost always works. RH/CentOS is a tough row to hoe in this regard comparitively.
>> It is fair to say that for almost all of the projects in the CNCF, specific vendors account for most of the development work being done.
> Not just “many” open source projects—all of them.
The author moves from an analysis written about CNCF projects to generalize a conclusion about all open source software. What a misleading title and content, it remains hanged without any evidence on those claims.
Definitive statements are easy to pick apart, but I think he's basically correct. Pretty much all the open source we use are made by a tiny handful of people. It makes sense because most software works this way anyhow, and when there are large groups involved it takes intense coordination.
The more existential question is: are those 'peripheral' additions critical? Because maybe that 'last mile' is superfluos, i.e. minor bugs and 'nice to have' features, but it's possible they are key contributions.
It's possible that the 'key contributors' are like 'managers' or 'curators' of the project, bringing in the work of others, making decisions about it, possibly borrowing ideas from the community and 'implementing it themselves'.
Yes. And a lot of projects these days emphasize "casual contributors" who work on small external modules, documentation, management (which, as you suggest, isn't explicitly factored into the stats), etc. As the piece suggests, it may be wrong to view open source through a lens of free, happy, and democratic community contributions but it would be equally wrong to say that it's just like proprietary software development.
It means most software projects are actually written by small teams of under 10. When you don’t count all the project staff, testing, operations, user support, etc.
Softwareis typically just lots of small components linked together. Especially super generalizable stuff like popular open source.
Matt is generalizing outside of the CNCF though. He specifically mentions Linux.
Personally, I wouldn't have used the term "all" absent having actually looked at the numbers myself. That said, it's probably at least mostly true, especially if you look at the subproject level in the case of projects like Linux and OpenStack.
> it remains hanged without any evidence on those claims.
While I get where you are coming from, give me a counter example/evidence.
My observation of the open source world is pretty much in sync with the generalization of this article.
Even if you might find some good counter example it most likely will be the exception to the rule.
I'm having trouble understanding this view. Of course most of the big projects like Linux or the browsers have corporate backing, but that ignores the huge amount of work done on much smaller projects by unpaid devs. I don't understand how anyone could say "I can’t think of a significant counterexample" as the author does; surely that just reflects his ignorance of anything beyond big corporate projects. Most of the programs I'm interacting with daily are built by volunteers; that's pretty typical of the Linux ecosystem.
Sure, Firefox has corporate backing, but the half dozen or so extensions that make the browser useful for me are all built by volunteers. uBlock, uMatrix, TreeStyleTab, Stylus, etc etc.
My backup software, borg? Built by volunteers. My music software, mpd? Built by volunteers. GIMP, useful for quick edits? Volunteers. My text editor, most of the games I play, terminal utilities, torrent clients? Volunteers too. Even the enormous amount of packaging work and bug triage done for my distribution (Arch Linux) is done by volunteers.
Even KDE and Gnome, I suspect, don't have many devs hired by corps to work on those projects. (Though I might be mistaken.)
Maybe by lines of open source code, rather than number of projects, you'd have an argument that corps do most of the work. But when it comes to the program ecosystem on Linux desktops, you're completely surrounded by a bunch of volunteer projects.
