Old School RuneScape potentially fits this description

Depends on the particular telling I think. DC has IIRC gone both ways with that.

I don’t think it really takes a side … just kind of points out that it’s super weird that it’s more socially acceptable in one direction than the other.

I do hope the author intended for what I said to be the point though.

I would argue the top picture is also a big no no.

IMO, it shows security is not a priority for them. Just because you’re on LAN it doesn’t mean encryption is insignificant. There also isn’t really “LAN” there are just networks, so this necessitates using some sort of server even in the case where you have an IPv6 or IPv4 address that would otherwise allow you to directly connect to your peer.

Seems interesting. I’m a bit concerned that they don’t see encrypting direct traffic as an issue though https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/wiki/FAQ#i-only-use-rustdesk-for-a-few-devices-on-my-local-network-with-no-internet-connectivity-can-i-still-use-rustdesk-with-direct-ip-access

flatpak for something as low level as a VPN is just not a great use case. I say that as a huge proponent of flatpak.

It’s really weird to think I put out feed to attract the colorful cousins of alligators to my back yard.

I don’t know if I would call that a Muppet but fair enough lol

The muppet on the wall?

Seems they’re discontinued?

Yeah, I’m thinking that’s the case … maybe it’s a tweak to their Android text boxes. That seems like something that’s got to be keyboard independent.

I feel like the amount of ads and/or length is a little excess these days, though.

I do agree but their costs have also skyrocketed because the resolution and frame rate of videos has skyrocketed.

Linus Tech Tips did a video about this … which agree with his conclusions or not, he paints a clear picture about how YouTube is more expensive to run than it used to be https://youtu.be/MDsJJRNXjYI

Google also isn’t in the business of “running things at a loss in hopes of future profit” anymore … so they need YouTube to be profitable. Maybe it’s “too profitable”, maybe they could cut down on the amount of advertising they use … but you’re absolutely right that they do test this stuff and find the threshold between “annoying but profitable” and “annoying but we’re losing users.”

More competition is always good … but Google isn’t stopping competition from showing up, just like Valve isn’t stopping competition from showing up, they’re just providing a better service that creators keep coming back to (because it’s ultimately good for those same creators to get their content out there and monetize it).

Literally read about regional pricing and how important it is. It’s incredibly ignorant to be against regional pricing.

The alternative to regional pricing is people just don’t have access at all.

More like regional pricing is an attempt to maximise value extraction from consumers

And right there I’m done with your comment. Regional pricing is incredibly important, without it everyone pays the US or EU price and there is no service provided period.

However, you can be assured that they are charging the people they’ve identified as less wealthy (e.g. in a low average income region) more than their marginal cost. Since YouTube is primarily going to be driven by marginal rather than fixed costs (it is very bandwidth and server heavy), and there is no reason to expect users in high-income locations cost YouTube more, it is a safe assumption that the gap between the regional prices is all extra profit.

Even if true, that’s not what this hoopla is about. It’s about someone from say … the US using a VPN to get Kenyan pricing. As another person said “The internet’s most beloved company, Steam, also bans people for abusing the store using VPNs.”

Regional pricing is the only reason people in these countries even stand a chance at access to the service (because ultimately their costs might be a bit lower in these countries but not by much … I would not be surprised if regional pricing is pretty much just above the break even mark). People in other countries abusing those slashed prices threatens the whole system.

This is people in “first world” countries trying to rig the system: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/15hz5ys/found_country_that_works_to_get_youtube_premium/

Someone in Uzbekistan for instance would feel as the average US consumer would if a year of YouTube premium was $829.

This really is not a service issue. This is not a privacy issue.

YouTube as a service is … actually a great service, it pays creators well, it’s fast, it has decades of content, and it has tons of features.

It’s monetized with ads, you either watch those ads or you pay them. Using a VPN to get a lower price on the subscription is not a service issue, that’s abuse of regional pricing, and no company would accept that.

Valve’s Artifact Classic card game. I actually found the basic formula to be really fun.

I think this game died for two reasons:

A) The game was review bombed for its monetization (IMO a lot of this was the non-target audience trying it and leaving a bad review)

B) Valve said following the review bombing that they were going to make major changes. This resulted in a lot of Artifact fans (IMO) leaving the game because … why invested and learn a game that’s going to undergo major changes.

So Valve worked on Artifact Foundry (and never finished it) … before eventually everyone at Valve gave up and released both Artifact Classic and Artifact Foundry for free. The original Artifact Classic is still a great time with a friend and all cards are now totally free so you can build whatever decks you want.

It’s basically a AAA studio card game, with cross platform support, released in complete, for free … because of some poor decision making. Some things may be unbalanced but if you’re playing with friends anyways … just have a friendly agreement to not use the cards that cause problems in your decks. It also could bounce back into active development if it starts to acquire a player base again (because Valve).

s/you/one/ I don’t think it’s really about YOU in particular, just “you” the author or “one that is saying things like this.”

Another example, “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime” isn’t about “you” it’s about the concept of “an individual (that might be the reader).” This phrasing seems to be more agreeable with some people and possibly there’s different tolerances geographically.

I’ve tried to use “one” in place of “you” to remove this ambiguity but it’s at times uncomfortable to type lol

Yikes, thanks for sharing that one!

Might want to check your sent mail to see what all is in there … Maybe your account got hacked and used to send spam (?)