KomfortablesKissen @ KomfortablesKissen @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

362

Joined

2 yr. ago

I wasn't mocking your argument, I was agreeing with you and clarifying that my feeling was about who I'm most "irritated" with, not about responsibility or legal culpability.

Okay, sorry for that. It happens to me sometimes to be mocked without me seeing prior cause for this. Thank you for clarifying that.

If a shop can't sell me cakes, then it's inconvenient. If a hospital is not able to keep people alive, that's where things get intolerable. Them not having access to their PCs is a hospital thing. If they cannot use them they should not use them. If it's a cost saving measure at the cost of people's lives, then I want heads to roll. Literally, preferably.

For the icecream, yes. If I want icecream and the shop doesn't have any because of a power grid failure, then I blame the power company more. The generator would be overkill, as it needs constant maintanance and checkups; immense running costs. This would not be justifiable for something like ice cream.

The hospital needs to be way more thorough with their supply chains. This discrepancy of responsibilities towards patients/customers is why I thought I was mocked, sorry again for that.

I called the certification processes "lacking" because they are very often out of date, if at all applied, like you said. The timeframe for product certifications needs to be drastically reduced for software products. I am aware that those checks need time the developers often don't have, but that doesn't matter. If that is a crucial issue, then they should stay the fuck away from critical infrastructure.

You write shitty code and it breaks something? You should be punished accordingly.

You load libraries without checking each and every one and now something's broken? You should be punished accordingly.

You load proprietary code and now something's broken? You better checked the whole contract so you can punish the creators after you've been punished.

Software developers often have way more reach (over distance and over time) than they realize. They should be held accountable more like doctors or engineers.

You can be reasonable in your choice of words, but there are heads that need to roll. In this case it is not the one pushing the final button, but all those that created this system. Developers, Project Managers, Team Leaders, all the way up to the CEO. If the space to work in is so limited that the possibility of such pushes seems like a tolerable idea, then everything leading to this is broken. And people need to invest to make this right. Therefore there needs to be incentives, good and bad. To steer out of the current course there need to be very unfavorable incentives.

You can mock my argument by giving a ridiculous example. Once people die it will be too late. It's why there was a time where people thought it to be a good idea to employ giant generators to keep the power in a hospital running even in case of a power outage. Or to have redundant systems in an airplane.

There is a need for adequate standards in the software world. Trusting businesses to create them will evidently kill people. Creating something like certificates for personal skills and products is severely lacking.

I can put the blame to your customers. If I make a contract with a bank they are responsible for my money. I don't care about their choice of infrastructure. They are responsible for this. They have to be sued for this. Same for hospitals. Same for everyone else. Why should they be exempt from punishment for not providing the one service they were trusted to provide? Am I expected to feel for them because they made the "sensible choice" of employing the cheapest tools?

This was a business decision to trust someone external. It should not be tolerated that they point their fingers elsewhere.

I can laugh either for or at you, if you want.

I'll pour one out for the frontliners.

I have. They are not mine. The dead people could be.

Edit: I understand you were being sarcastic. This is a topic where I chose to ignore that.

Applying updates is considered good practice. Auto-applying is the best you can do with the money provided. My critique here is the amount of money provided.

Also, you cannot pull a Boeing and let people die just because you cannot 100% avoid accidents. There are steps in between these two states.

Nice! Thank you EU for the GDPR!

For the next step, please let the companies that produce software be held accountable for damages. For Nonprofits change the target to associated companies. Also punish the people responsible, like the developers, for their software and choice of used libraries. If the library was insufficiently supported by the developer, then the developer has no ground to sue for damages themselves.

I'm volunteering to hold their beer.

Everyone remember to sue the services not able to provide their respective service. Teach them to take better care of their IT landscape.

And how does YouTube know what people might want to watch? By tracking what they watch and adjusting their algorithms appropriately.

My point is that that is not the reason, but one step on the way. And it is a way to influence people even to the point of enforcing things.

Perhaps you're not part of the quiet majority.

Correct.

YouTube's number one goal is to show ads, and their service does that by getting people to watch more videos.

Which is a singular goal with a reachable epitome of video making that is essentially enforcing a rally between content creators to find this epitome.

How does this create unique content? This is merely tolerating the existence of such content, as long as it doesn't get in the way of profits or rock any boats with "youtube drama". How does this competition create unique stuff?

It is not tuned for what people want to watch, but to what youtube thinks you want to watch. Also what they think they can get away with suggesting you. My experience is that I do not like what the autoplay function plays next, for example.

There are indeed "backroom bosses" deciding what arbitrary hoops someone has to jump through, youtube is no lawless place. There are enforced rules as to language and video material. This has little to do with the suggestions, but not nothing.

It does a selection that give youtube the most money. That indeed filters out unpopular things (making it also way harder to gain popularity if relying solely on youtube; a widely accepted alternative would be a deal with a popular youtuber), but also controversial stuff like criticism. Also child porn so its not entirely bad (also it is very necessary), just way too powerful and obtuse to be trusted in the hands of someone wanting to make money.

Also, I like your choice in channels. Those I don't watch from that list are those I don't yet know. Thank you for the list!

So, you are trying to defend a mechanism you actively try to work against?

YouTube does indeed force things. It's called the search algorithm and it effectively selects the people who get the money. Comply or get payed accordingly less. If you think otherwise why do you think YouTube has any say over how to "segment their offerings"?

Competition here is done for money, which is abstracted into viewer count metrics as provided by YouTube. The clickbait, call for subscription and the ads are what has been created as the result of competition.

Competition made the sales pitch for every video better, also lifted the standard on production quality in video and audio. But it drowns out most unique ideas.

This isn't only the need to compete for viewers, this is the need to comply to YouTube's search algorithm. It enforces similar content just like SEO is enforced for Google Search. There sometimes will be new stuff, but all as a means to keep being relevant, not because the stuff is interesting. That means that most new stuff will be entertainment, or "infotainment", which is fine in itself, but drowns out anything else. If you don't see the danger in that, the US government does in their strive to sabotage TikTok (not saying it's undeserved).

Production value is indeed up, which is a good thing, but not enough. This is presentation over the actual stuff. However variety is way down in the more successful youtubers. The variety comes from people who mostly don't give a shit about the performance of their videos; or from people trying to be successful while tending to a niche. The latter however will still implement most stuff from the top youtubers. If something seems successful it will be implemented by the more successful youtubers, but they mostly won't experiment as it costs money and normally negatively impacts viewer counts. YouTube's search algorithm has driven people to comply to presentation, nothing more.

Clickbait, asking for subscription, adding ads and more are all symptoms of this compliance to the platform. Do you sub to a channel that has never done any of those?

Sharing stuff one has interest in is good. Making use of SEO or "the algorithm" is a cashgrab. You can do so but I won't support you.

The need to compete in popularity is something that kills good things efficiently and regularly.

"Non GMO"

Do you take Advantage off babysitters?

You can bring it back!

Or just use a mechanical (200$+) keyboard!