I stopped before that point. I think it was around the guardian ape. I had read how the game started to click with people after Genichiro, but that didn't happen with me, so I thought it never would. It definitely did towards the end game. But hey, it might not be for everyone, and that's ok too.
That's the biggest problem with waterfall to be honest. You can sit there and point at requirements, but requirements can be interpreted differently. And that's a bigger issue with waterfall because you're handed a list of requirements with little context on what the purpose is of what you're doing because you weren't in any of the conversations earlier on in the process.
Agile doesn't mean you don't have requirements. What happened really sucks. But you aren't working in agile. You're just being screwed.
That totally sucks. But has nothing to do with agile. That could have happened with waterfall because you would have sat there and developed things in isolation only to find out at the end it wasn't what was expected.
The problem is that it's a lot easier to implement agile poorly, than it is to implement it in a way that works.
You've essentially described what agile shouldn't be. The fact it's called agile, means people assume it just means you can change things whenever you want because that's being "agile". That isn't what agile methodology is meant to be. If that's what you're experiencing, then it's being done wrong. And it's frustrating because this is extremely common.
Waterfall can be just as bad. I've worked on plenty of waterfall projects only to spend months of my time on things that never see the light of day. Things change, and waterfall can rarely deal with change mid-project without starting over. It's completely dependent on the context of the work.
But YouTube still is free. This article isn't about YouTube not being free, they've just increased the price of their subscription (like Netflix and Spotify do routinely). You just expect to get it for free and without ads. I'm confused at who you think is paying to store and stream all those videos if it was entirely free?
Going down the rabbit hole of YouTube getting it's content for free is a slippery slope. I see what you're saying, but YouTube is hosting and streaming that content for those content creators. That isn't cheap. It's a double edged sword. Because you likely wouldn't know or have access to those content creators if they weren't able to upload those videos to YouTube and not have to pay to provide that service themselves. Is it perfect, no. But name another completely free streaming service.
And I'd argue it's not entirely comparable to Reddit and Twitter. Both in cost incurred to store and stream that data, and they pay those content creators who generate a lot of views. Again, another rabbit hole in terms of what payment is fair etc. But it's not a fair comparison to put YouTube in the Twitter and Reddit bucket. It probably sits somewhere in between Spotify and those social platforms.
Edit: I forgot to point out the biggest issue with your comparison to Reddit and Twitter. You seem to forget that those platforms also have ads.
I'm not sure I see the problem. Is there a reason you expect to be able to use the service for free and even ad free?
I might only listen to a few songs a week. Is it fair that I have to sit through ads when I try to listen to them on Spotify? I don't really want to pay for a subscription, especially because I already pay for YouTube. Clearly paying the full subscription cost for Spotify isn't worth it in my case.
Edit: Don't mean to sound like a smart ass. But as you can see, you can basically swap Spotify for YouTube in your argument. Spotify is just more valuable to you, which is fine. That doesn't mean you should get the other thing free. Just like I shouldn't expect to get Spotify ad free.
I do! Would probably give up my Netflix subscription before YouTube to be honest. As a family, we spend more time using YouTube than most other streaming services.
But you don't have to have all those subscriptions. You get YouTube Music included so you don't need a separate music subscription. You also don't have to worry about working out the latest app/add-on/plugin/site that lets you play YouTube without ads. It's pretty good value actually. I get more from it than I do my Netflix subscription. I rotate my other subscriptions based on the shows I'm watching. I always have a YouTube subscription and don't foresee stopping it just coz I can't go back to ads haha.
I wonder if most of the complaints of ads on YouTube are coming from people who subscribe to something like Netflix, but spend just as much (or more) time streaming YouTube.
Where is there a difference in the UI though? As both seem to have a back arrow/button to navigate back. I may need to keep playing around with it, as I'm still not seeing much of a difference in the app. But it's still in beta so maybe that's why.
Yeah. I'm trying to test it out now for a bit. But I prefer the iOS version. The UI still seems to function exactly the same, with some minor cosmetic changes.
I've been on Android for years now. But I'm confused, what makes the Apple version more clunky? I prefer it. I'm actually not really sure why there's a need for two versions. What is it exactly that makes it an Android version?
Just start making coffee. You might find it improves over time. Whether it's seasoning, you getting more consistent, or getting better at dialling in those beans, you may as well be drinking coffee during the process. I wouldn't just sit there and grind beans to throw away. It's too much of a waste.
Your post isn't divisive because you wrote better instead of faster. You used the term "objective" incorrectly, and are continuing to. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, or even testing things out for yourself. That doesn't make your point of view objective.
Do you have any data to back any of your claims? If not, that's what makes them subjective. In your opinion, button navigation is faster. Doesn't make it objective by any stretch.
You can't say something is "objectively" better than. Then proceed to list "subjective" opinions. Clearly you dislike gesture navigation, which is fine, but that doesn't make it objectively worse.
yesterdayshero @ yesterdayshero @lemmy.world Posts 10Comments 107Joined 2 yr. ago
I stopped before that point. I think it was around the guardian ape. I had read how the game started to click with people after Genichiro, but that didn't happen with me, so I thought it never would. It definitely did towards the end game. But hey, it might not be for everyone, and that's ok too.