Recent comments in /f/Futurology

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j9q46xh wrote

Reply to The American climate migration has already begun | Jake Bittle by Gari_305

Its disingenuous to put that solely on climate. California for example is horribly overpopulated and has terrible environmental and social policies and I say there would be an internal exodus away from it with or without climate change.

The fact that the two States that receive the largest internal migration are two of the hottest States should be a big red flag that there are other, more important factors in play.

−6

DirtyBottomsPottery t1_j9pzpic wrote

Reply to Let's talk about the future of the company YouTube in light of its new CEO by blekautaw

I think the future of youtube should be to focus on attracting and retaining high quality content creators. Part of what makes quality content is a combination of quality video creation, practical application of knowledge, having novel ideas that pop up via praxis, and understanding what demographic that the content creator is appealing to. Giving content creators access to demographic data and the ability to understand big data via visualization tools would be a huge advantage for those who understand the value of mathematics. I honestly don't know who is looking at my content. Because I don't know that, I don't know for whom I should tailor my content. Being less universally appealing, more specific would reduce the number of hats I'm trying to wear. At present I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of hats. It's a bit overwhelming. I have limited resources, and can't please everyone.

One of the groups I've gotten tired of are content creators who drive people away from youtube towards their own websites so that the content creators can drive their own sales. The whole point of youtube is to provide quality content, not low quality, clickbait frustration. My life is short, don't waste it with bait and switch.

To me NFTs are neither here nor there. If they prove viable, cool, but I doubt they will. It honestly sounds like a con artist's scheme. If it does work out, there will be a gold rush, and people will digitally squat on as much as their greedly little digital fingers can muster. Preventing digital bullies and squatters would be key to engaging creatives. Making sure the knowledge and ability to create such content would need to get into as many hands as possible. Inclusivity would be key. Exclusivity and elitism are toxic to people who want to have fun. The more fun people have doing this, the more likely it is to succeed.

I don't know why, but I feel like a weight has been lifted with the departure of the last CEO. Youtube as a whole feels less oppressive.

I like the ability to be able to select broad categories at the top of the feed. Please for the love of all that is holy I want youtube to remove the "already viewed" option. I want new content included in my feed, not just as an option to occasionally select. If the algorithm needs me to make more original searches in order for me to have higher quality or new content, just say so. I think part of the problem in my feed is the fact I stop searching for content and rely on it being given to me by the algorithm. Without new data the algorithm seems to struggle to find suitable novel content.

Maybe youtube could focus less on content creators who are trying to generate as many clicks and subs as possible and focus more on cultivating new content. I.E. less populist driven, more nerd driven. I would like to see more nerds and weirdos who love what they do being promoted. Their love and passion is infectious and spiritually uplifting.

I want youtube to work on fixing problems in the new content option. It's constantly trying to show me news programs especially in languages that I don't speak or read. I don't want news in my feed, ever. The media is designed for anxiety and depression clicks. I don't want that awful crap in my life. I don't want to know about the latest shooting spree. I don't care about cake and circus like the superbowl. I want them to stop trying to get me to click on stuff that doesn't apply to me. Youtube is supposed to be a magician of data yet it constantly wastes visual space on annoying and off-putting content that I obviously am not interested in.

I don't know how youtube monetizes anything, and frankly I have no faith in monetization. If there was more transparency I would probably have more faith and actually try. I wish to be financially independent. I have no data or advice on how to do that as a content creator. No one talks about this, because everyone feels like they're competing with everyone else. <sarcasm>Heaven forbid we all have the same access to knowledge of how to succeed in a digital arena.</sarcasm> The only advice I've seen is to create my own gimmick and creating useless objects. That one's already taken, so yeah... If I'm not financially stable, I can't focus on content creation. I can't create if I'm homeless. If I work a 40 hour job, I'm usually too tired to create. I'm not greedy. As long as I have a roof over my head and food in my stomach I will be happy. Maybe youtube should get serious about developing content creators and helping them to be financially viable and less of a "we only promote rich kids who we can make tons of money off of and are so privileged they didn't need our help in the first place."

1

override367 t1_j9pxu61 wrote

Reply to comment by nanocyto in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123

They... literally can't unless a complaint is filed, like holy shit this is the core of the case law around section 230

They can't knowingly put out material that is illegal or would get them in trouble, but they bear no liability if they don't know, until such time as they are made aware of it

The reason 230 was created was that this standard only applied to websites that exercised no moderation. IE: if the algorithm was literally a random number generator and you had an equal chance of it recommending you acooking video or actual child pornography, Youtube would be 100% in the clear without 230 as long as they removed the latter after being notified. 230 was necessary because Prodigy, like Youtube, had moderation and content filtering, and any moderation at all meant that they were tacitly endorsing something that was on their service, therefore, they were liable

This is the entire reason the liability shield was created. Section 230 means websites bear no liability in essentially any circumstance other than willful negligence as long as they didn't upload the content, SCOTUS is only considering this case because they aren't judges, they are mad wizards and this is calvinball, not law

1

riceandcashews t1_j9pxswc wrote

Reply to comment by JRsFancy in Google announces major breakthrough that represents ‘significant shift’ in quantum computers by Ezekiel_W

In simple terms, a quantum computer can simultaneously calculate every possibility in a set of arbitrary size, whereas a classical computer would have to calculate each possibility separately.

So for small operations that's not so helpful, but for massive ones it would be revolutionary. For example, consider calculating the 3d shape of a molecule with hundreds of atoms, or the interaction of several molecules with dozens of atoms. It is impractical to do this kind of calculation with the proper math due to the number of calculations/possibilities/interactions. Right now we use a 'rough' kind of calculation that is close enough but not close enough for many fields like medicine creation and protein folding. QC would make that task easy. It would also make AI training dramatically easier. Etc.

2