• 1 Post
  • 175 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 30th, 2024

help-circle

  • Is there a credible source for the costs of hosting? Wikipedia is listing similar ad revenues as you did but no info on the costs. YouTube has 2.7 billion users that watch in average around 11 hours of videos a month. If 2 billion USD/y would be sufficient to host all that that’d be just 0,74 USD/user*year or 0,06 USD per month. That sounds really cheap considering that you have to pay for storage, traffic, backups and redundancies (at least I never heard of significant outages or data loss on YT).

    Does anyone have a credible source on the number of employees YouTube has? If you search for that you fine vastly different number from just 2k to 189k employees.


  • TBH I’m not sure if a platform like YouTube will ever exist in a non-commercial way. Many creators that I follow reached a level of professionalism that comes with significant costs. You need expensive cameras, microphones, lights, high-end computers, drones, personnel costs for cutters and people that help with research. They have travel costs, sometimes rent for offices etc. All that just to produce the content.

    On top, there are significant costs for hosting. I mean YouTube is hosted on multiple data centers rather than a bunch of servers or even home computers. Already Lemmy, which is mostly text and pictures, is a decent financial burden to instance owners. Not to mention the time for moderation and administration. And even here, in a place full of hardcore FOSS supporters, it’s not like admins are drowned in donations.

    If YouTube ads and product placements are the only source of income for content creators, then the only alternative would be that consumers directly pay for the content and the platform. Or that such a platform would be paid by some state / taxes. Both of which don’t sound very realistic to me.





  • I like this definition the best. If someone is making a super complex sandwich with many ingredients and passion, then I’m fine to call that cooking. Same with a cold soup, a cous-cous salad or a fancy appetizer. Many dishes in top notch cuisine are served cold. In molecular kitchen, there’s even stuff served below freezing. Still all cooking to me.

    If someone just warms up a can of Ravioli, microwaves convinience food, etc. I’d consider that rather food prep. If using the microwave is just one step of multiple in a recipe, than that’s fine again.

    For me cooking requires a minimum level of effort rather than a minimum level of heat.


  • Personally, I don’t like noticeable make-up. If it’s barely visible, it’s fine as well but in general I like ‘no make up’ the best.

    It’s also not only about looks:

    • If you wear make-up, you have to be careful with rain, touching the face, kissing etc.
    • It may take a lot of time to apply.
    • It’s expensive.
    • It’s rather bad than good for your skin.
    • It’s bad for the environment (more trash, animal testing, contimination of water etc.).

    No make-up = Win-Win-Win-[…]








  • I’d be completely on board with that proposal. There are many differentiators in sports that contribute to your success. Your sex might be a very important one but definitely not the only one that matters.

    I would group different athletes based on skill level, strength, height or whatever is relevant in that dicipline. Being born with a penis or not shouldn’t matter.

    If we say that for a specific kind of sport the level of testosterone is the most important factor to success, than that should be used for the grouping. That way, men with low testorone would be the same ‘league’ as woman with a medium testosterone level and woman with a really high testosterone level would play along men with a medium level of testosterone.

    From my perspective, this would not only end all these gender discussions in sports but also make the lower leagues way more interesting and more fair for both genders.