How would you design presentation preparation with that in mind?
Rehearse. Repetition strengthens associations and so increases the chance that you will fall into the same behavior.
Or anything for that matter?
Masaad Ayoob revolutionized police gunfighting techniques by simplifying movements and changing techniques to more closely resemble the natural stance people take when in the "Fight or Flight" mode.
When an airplane is diving into the ground, the natural inclination for pilots is to pull back on the stick. Making the override resemble this would be a way of following this design principle. I think the situation which caused the accident is a bit more complicated and nuanced than just that idea, however.
At least in JS scenarios, the difference is nowhere near that. It's actually trading the first place with chrome between tests: https://arewefastyet.com/
It's 2019 now. Try Firefox again. For me it feels faster than Chrome. And it has a reader view. That's on Linux and on Windows. On Mac, I admit, Chrome feels faster. But you have Safari.
Firefox's speed depends a lot on which extensions you use.
I use a bunch, like uBlock Origin, uMatrix, Tridactyl, Tree Style Tab, and Stylus, and Firefox slows down to a crawl for me when I have more than about 8 tabs open.
Now, some might advise not to use extensions, but using extensions is half the reason that I use Firefox at all in the first place, as Firefox without extensions really sucks.
I use uBlock Origin, uMatrix and Greasemonkey, and FireFox is nice and fast with several dozen tabs open for weeks at a time.
Slack leaks memory like there's no tomorrow, but that's on Slack. I just close the Slack tab and force a full GC/CC cycle and I get my memory back.
I'd do a binary search of sorts, disable half of the extensions and see if performance is still bad or not etc, to narrow it down to the offending extension(s).
Having lived in close to a 100 airbnb apartments soon and never once experienced an issue with the checking and checkout or a larger concern about the quality or communication, I'd recommend you to give it another go if you have the chance. Because your concerns are not warranted.
It’s fine 95% of the time. If you are booking an Airbnb same day as check in it’s going to have to be an instant booking, which is a fraction of the Airbnbs available.
If you’re a biz traveler and your flight is delayed or getting in late the comfort of knowing you can enter a hotel that is big, easy to find, and lobby open and attended to 24/7 is much more comforting than anything you can book on Airbnb. It’s hard to argue with.
What's worse for YouTube? That news articles continue to be written about how they're ignoring a pedophilia problem, or some channels getting caught up in the algorithm? It sucks to be negatively affected as a content creator, but YouTube is doing what everyone has been pressuring them to do.
It's simply absurd for YouTube to manually moderate comments at the scale they currently operate. If you force them to do that, it won't be profitable, and you'll end up with YouTube blowing channels away because they can't afford to host them anyway.
You are thinking at human scales, and that is understandable, but Google doesn't think at human scales and it's only "absurd" if you think that Google has the inalienable right to the smallest possible cost of goods sold, even if that means offloading their externalities onto everyone else.
It is probably obvious that I do not. You shouldn't, either.
At Google's scale, trained-but-unskilled workers are not expensive. They are not cheap, but they are not expensive. And Google makes a lot of money. This is a common throughline from large societally-threatening, socialize-our-externalities-but-never-our-profits companies from Facebook to Google: "doing something correctly, or even trying to, would just cost too much money, so we should continue our societal-termite ways!" Until these unwatched monsters--and that is, I stress, the default state of the corporation, it is only the threat of the society that grants them their charter taking it away that adds even a speck of decency to them--prove, prove, that they somehow just can't survive by reducing incomprehensible net revenues to merely gigantic, then I will continue to operate on the understanding that they don't want to. Which I tend to think is a much, much more realistic thing.
I don't care. They fix their product or YouTube delenda est. Either is preferable to the current situation.
They make money by not spending it when they can get the same outcome for free[1]. Also, Search and Adwords make money, YouTube is getting by[2] (relatively). Why should other divisions subsidize a loss-making YouTube? Some channels don't make enough money relative to number of comments to be financially viable (no matter how cheap the moderators are) - Google has simply outsourced this decision to individual channel owners.
1. Google user's do a lot of things for free already, e.g. Map POIs
I understand that. I also understand that stuff like YouTube is effectively becoming the public square of the twenty-first century and if a company wants to own that, they can deal with not making all the money off of it that they could possibly, theoretically, make.
People matter more than corporations. Society matters more than corporations. I'm comfortable asserting that it would be better for Google to close YouTube down than to let an organ of growing central importance to society at large become what it's obviously starting to become; something less damaging than that neglectful caretakership can arise in its wake.
Are you seriously suggesting that disabling comments on a certain type of video content is more damaging to society than losing a global engine of content creation and community?
YouTube benefits society immensely by sustaining a very expensive 21st century public square. If we as a society want to have that - and I at least very much do - we can deal with not making comments on all the videos we could theoretically comment upon.
I am seriously suggesting that this is not something that can be algorithmically determined. I'm quite OK with all manner of content not having comments enabled. I'm not okay with unthinkingly stupid false positives all over the place harming creatives' (actual creatives) ability to feed themselves, and those false positives are overwhelmingly caused by bad heuristics and objectively dumb algorithmic decision-making.
Feeding humans into The Machine, having The Machine make context-free, alarmingly inaccurate, and functionally beyond-appeal decisions--because the appeal process doesn't scale either, we are so frequently told, when it isn't just "drop the appeal on the floor--is bad. If Google has no other answer than Feed The Machine, then The Machine should be considered inimical to humans and should be dismantled.
But, of course, The Machine is not necessary; that's a convenient fiction to paint the problem as a dilemma of "no YouTube" and "some unaccountable algorithm runs YouTube and decide what you can see, free to lead kids from Let's Plays to Nazi agitprop and pedophiles to their spank bait." It's just that the Machine is cheaper, you know? And that's really, and literally, all.
I can't take your concern for creatives' ability to feed themselves seriously when you turn around and advocate for fully destroying the platform that is feeding them. Many full-time content creators on YouTube aren't big enough to make it on a smaller platform or on their own.
I also don't think the "Machine" is necessary, but I do think it's better than having no global engine for content creation and community at all. If you think there's a viable third option, I'm interested in hearing how it would work and the cost of achieving it. But of course you're free to continue making dystopian metaphors and pointing at Nazis instead.
The way it works is to have these companies hire, and pay for, and care for (see Facebook terminating counseling services, etc. for leaving content-moderation employees) employees to make the decisions to provide a platform that's safe and sane.
That's it. That's literally it. That's just...it.
You are ultimately correct, in that it will be of relatively higher cost. You are ultimately correct, in the sense that "anything" costs more than "nothing". And I genuinely don't care. It must to happen,. And a large part of why I don't care is that I am not advocating for its destruction; what I am saying is that I am perfectly okay with going to the mat with Google and other ostensibly supra-national corporations because they'll back down. They will back down because they will still do just fine. Google is not going to shutter YouTube, Twitter is not going to fold (well, not because of this), Facebook is not going to hang a CLOSED sign on the door because governments say "no, you have to actually have humans make decisions that impact these other humans and process them sanely instead of having your robots blap stuff to death because it found a peak in their hill-climbing." They will comply, because they will still make plenty of money.
And if they don't? If I'm wrong? Somebody else will do it. They're plenty of gold in that hill, even if you aren't allowed to get at it for completely free.
(It is also worth noting that...uh...on YouTube, those Nazis exist. They're right there. I've watched them radicalize teenage boys who started on Let's Plays. The algorithm happily feeds those boys to them. That's part of this problem, too, and you can't just handwave it away.)
You speak with such confidence that YouTube is printing enough money to sustain such a massive additional cost but that's unlikely. Don't just take my word for it, the WSJ has reported on this matter [1] because Google doesn't release financial details for YouTube on its own.
You've done nothing but rattle off assertions about how YouTube just so profitable and won't shut down, how there's so much money in ad-supported video hosting, how somebody else can do it. These are fantastic claims, by which I mean they are rooted in fantasy.
I have no trouble believing that this represents an existential threat to YouTube. If Google massively shrinks or shuts down YouTube as a free and global content platform, it's not just their loss, it's ours as well.
> The online-video unit posted revenue of about $4 billion in 2014, up from $3 billion a year earlier, according to two people familiar with its financials, as advertiser-friendly moves enticed some big brands to spend more. But while YouTube accounted for about 6% of Google’s overall sales last year, it didn’t contribute to earnings. After paying for content, and the equipment to deliver speedy videos, YouTube’s bottom line is “roughly break-even,” according to a person with knowledge of the figure.
I didn't say YouTube was "just so profitable." Google is so very profitable and Google won't shut YouTube down because Google derives incredible mindshare value and analytics insight from owning YouTube. YouTube and a similarly not-super-profitable-but-very-useful product--Gmail--get people into the Google ecosystem and facilitate greater understanding and deeper analytics into their userbase in ways that make the things that do make money make more money. To reduce it to a P&L for that single division is bonkers.
And from a brand perspective? To younger people, YouTube is the part of Google that they like. It's not going away if it becomes marginally more expensive to run (and we are talking marginally. Facebook pays $28,800 a head for content moderation, and that's American employees), because all doing so does is open the door for a competitor--and while 2009-me thinks this is crazy to say, I find myself eyeing Microsoft in 2019, though Facebook is also of course a likely contestant--to come take all those eyeballs and all that analytics data.
I promise: it's okay to dare even a megacorporation to blink. We live in a society, they operate under our rules.
Google doesn't need YouTube to exist in its current form to have a large viewership. It can just as easily turn YouTube into a controlled TV-like platform where content is primarily created by incumbent professionals with little room for anything else. They'll still get incredible viewership. That's where the mainstream lives after all. Smaller content creators aren't particularly profitable or popular, so why bother if all they do is invite the press and people like you to slap them around for having them. I'd say it's already going in that direction.
And from a brand perspective? The linked article in this thread is a global, mainstream news publication burning Google & YouTube's brand by associating them with pedophiles.
Marginally more expensive? Try hundreds of millions a year to employ the thousands of workers to properly vet the 80k+ hours of video content uploaded every single day, with countless more comments. Then get slapped around by the press anyway because those workers aren't paid enough, and they aren't given quite enough mental care because they're still a bit screwed up after watching garbage 8 hours a day, and by the way they shouldn't be watching garbage 8 hours a day because that's awful for a human being to do that, they should do it at a nice 8 hours/week but they should still get paid a lot more because they're doing god's work and market rate wages aren't enough for them.
So what's your plan? Google realizes that hey, they don't need to operate a free global platform for content creators of all sizes at a P&L loss, they can do what everyone else does and make a lot of money, get a lot of mainstream viewership, avoid PR blows like this one...then you get to proclaim victory because youtube.com still exists?
Oh right, if Google stops operating a free global platform for content creators everywhere at a loss, someone else will do it. Like Facebook, which suffers from the exact same issues, is working towards the same AI approach as YouTube, and got slapped by the press after hiring human moderators anyway? Like Amazon, which acquired Twitch and almost immediately applied an AI-based automatic content moderator even more inaccurate and punishing than YouTube's? Like Microsoft, which...uhh what? I'll let you come up with reasons why Microsoft is somehow an appropriate competitor.
I can only describe your comments as wishful thinking. We live in a capitalist democracy, we operate under its rules. You're free to suggest that we as a society choose a different system, but good luck with that. Until that changes, I promise: megacorporations don't blink, they just look away. I think it would be a tremendous loss if one of the most competent members of our society looked away from the project of a free, global video platform for content creators of all sizes, stripes, and beliefs.
I would argue against banning those things, even if it's a thing I don't like, like I am now. I argue against the cultural idea that if I don't like it, YouTube needs to get rid of it. If you think something is so bad that it shouldn't be on YouTube, you should go through society's democratic process and get it enshrined into law.
Do you really think we can create a greater extinction event than the ones the insects have survived? And yes, that includes some serious climate changes.
This used to worry me too, but I read this article [1] and it cheered me up! Sure, most of civilisation would likely crumble if centres of production and distribution were nuked and vast tracts of the world would be irradiated, but it's by no means an ELE.
The impact which ended the era of the dinosaurs had an estimated energy greater than all the nuclear weapons in the world. Granted, it was concentrated in one area. But the result was thought to have effected the entire planet, with the sun being blocked out for several years, resulting in the collapse of plant life and drop in temperatures. The forests around the world may have also ignited after ejecta from the impact fell back to earth, temporarily superheating the atmosphere.
A nuclear war can only be fought to the point where nobody has the capacity to keep fighting. You can't actually obliterate the planet. The global climate would be altered but it wouldn't be close to the worst the earth has seen. Insects, plants, rodents, and humans will all almost certainly survive a nuclear war. Animals in the wild are largely unaffected by high levels of background radiation because they don't live long enough for that to be what kills them and they reproduce before that anyway.
Nuclear war would suck for people but life on earth and a lot of the life on it would be just fine.
Its not my beliefs. I'm just pointing out that the simple act of strictly regulating your diet will almost always make you healthier because you have to watch what you eat and avoid crap like takeaway
