GreatDong3000

Grexit when

I see. From that list the international purchases is a good reason to use PayPal in Brazil. I only have an account there because like 6 years ago I needed to pay for a TOEFL certification and without an international card the only way was PayPal so it worked pretty nicely. Never had to use it after that tho. Hope you guys get a better alternative so PayPal can die a horrible death.

What is the use case for PayPal in the US? Here in Brazil we pay everything with credit card or bank transfer with a QR code. People can transfer money to you from any bank 24/7 instantaneously with just your email or phone number without any fees. Is that different in the US?

I use Linux and only install software from the official distro repository + verified flatpaks. No av, no worries.

For economists (and business) students it isn't a graphing calculator but same thing with HP12c (financial calculator). But it is only like 40 dollars.

No you don't need the terminal in most distros meant for desktop use to install software. Your distro will have a GUI app store, then flatpak and snap which are the most common software repositories after your distro's default also have GUI. You can use the terminal because it is literally faster, you don't have to if you lack cognitive ability to write apt install gimp or some shit.

Nah, computer vision for standalone image processing (I mean, not batch processing dozens to thousands of files at the same time) today is pretty lightweight and can be done easily on consumer laptops and smartphones. It is just a different technique and takes people with different skills to do it, but completely doable. Gor example, even face detection AI models can run on your laptop, if AI can learn to classify faces, objects and animals it can learn to classify ads.

Edgy

At this point you can just replace the video with the same video using a timestamped link from just before the ad started. Under IPv4 they can't tell if it is the same person/device requesting the same video. So unless they put the ad at exactly the same timestamp (which they won't) you can just blank out the video when an ad starts and replace the stream with the same video using the timestamp to start the video where you left off.

I guess saying the difference wasn't quite specific. It works by deleting everything which is not the same between the two versions of the video, all the parts that are the same in the 2 videos are kept, everything else must be an ad. It breaks down if there is the same ad at the same time on both videos.

They probably had this ready to go a long time ago. It is just heavier on their servers so it costs more. Likely they had a number in mind about how many users would have to be using ad-blockers before rolling this out, to balance costs.

I think Google created a model that is unsustainable from the get go, because they have infinite money glitches and used this to monopolize the market and lure in creators.

It could be sustainable for non-premium users if the amount of ads was similar to what it was, idk, 10 years ago, 14 years ago. However back then they were not making nearly enough to cover their costs and pay creators handsomely.

I like to support creators but I also liked youtube better when it was mostly common people doing their thing however the fuck they wanted, instead of this hyper-profissionalized tv-wannabe corporate channels that grow to be mammoths.

Problem is, we accepted the weird assumption that successful content creators on the internet are entitled to be millionaires, or to make a lot more money per month than say, a successful person in a common profession. If content creators got into youtube with the mindset that at best they'd live a life that is middle class instead of trying to become rich, then youtube would need a lot less money than it needs today, and content would go back to being more relaxed not mega professional and extremely polished videos from channels that employ dozens of people.

But alas, I guess successful video creators on youtube are supposed to be rich and deserve to earn more money than a doctor, and youtube is supposed to be a viable source of income for mega corporations that used to be mainly TV and other traditional media but then freaked out about losing people to the internet.

That's what I thought at first but who am I kidding, if content creators got paid less youtube would still be very popular and google would still do whatever the fuck they want and shove more ads in it anyways. And also, paying top creators so much money is another way to prevent competition, creators won't choose another platform if they can't match the pay.