A bit more like Kevin Powell, who publishes lots of free CSS videos [0], has some good basic CSS Training Courses for free, but charges money for the advanced ones [1]. His videos are not only available on his site, but they're also on Front End Masters, which is a well known training site.
I think for most people you're right, they just want to upload their videos, and maybe make a couple of bucks on the side. I was referring to folks who are truly committed to making this their career and want to have their own brand. Many, many people are already doing this, so it isn't something theoretical. Most YouTubers are automating their production pipeline, so another upload step isn't too hard, especially nowadays where it is easier than ever to build a bespoke, deterministic pipeline with agents writing scripts and programs.
There are lots of strategies how to make money and it will vary based on your specialty. It could be premium content, premium services, exclusive engagement with your fans, merchandising (e.g., many cooking YouTubers sell their own brand of cooking utensils that they have designed themselves). It requires some thought, but the idea is to deepen the authenticity and engagement by building an actual community and your own personal micro-brand. The offering needs to feel organic and huge value to your community in some way. Many many people have done this on YT and now are making way more money than what's possible with the pittance that is YT monetization. YT then becomes just one part of your funnel intake strategy once you get big enough.
Edit: Of course, you do need to have enough demand/scale to make it worth your while, but that will depend on your audience size and how engaged/invested they are in your content AND you personally to an extent. Perhaps be creative and start out with small experiments. Not too hard with LLMs nowadays.
> Realistically, how many viewers will be retained should YT shut the OP down? Right now, that number rounds to 0. Practically speaking, YT is free internet video streaming for long-form videos on the US market.
People have been following this strategy of creating their own mini-brands for years and have their own following. YT doesn't even have all of the their content, and YT is just one lead gen channel. Frankly, Ad Revenue from YT is pitiful, and it's an open secret the real money is made as I've described (although it is a long term play).
I don't disagree with you about PeerTube and the like, but it is a two-sided marketplace and you need to prime both sides of that pump (content creators and viewers).
You can publish to both and even better your own domain that simply points to your video hosting provider. Long term you want to own your distribution channel as much as possible, while using YouTube as your lead generation tool to drive true believers to your site and premium distribution channel not owned by YouTube. Otherwise, you will always be subject to platform risk via YouTube's whims which has destroyed many content creators. That's the long term winning play IMO and it doesn't preclude tools like FreeTube.
> Requiring a disclaimer is essentially admitting the content isn’t meaningfully different than human generated content. At that point, who cares? Just engage with the premise on its own merits, rather than on how it was written.
The problem is the reader has to invest time to find out and LLM written text will (on average) lower the quality towards "meh" and spend more words doing so. Even if the author is making an earnest effort to produce high quality content, they need to admit to themselves and others that their results will be more hit or miss. The disclosure allows the reader to make a more informed decision about how to engage with the material (e.g., have an LLM summarize or analyze the content, or just dive in because we know it will very likely be a good read). Editing what someone has written is like reviewing code, you're by default not as invested, so the results will likely reflect that reality.
Great advice! The really tricky part to me is when you have an event your recorded before it happened, but want to look it up after the event has passed (e.g., you want to look up the doctor's appointment a year after it occurred). The simplest and mostly solid answer I've been able to come up with is:
1. If you want to know when something happened and a particular place is important (like the previously mentioned doctor's appointment), store the local date/time with timezone data. That covers you in case the timezone changes before your recorded event happens. Personally, I would not store reflexively store dates/times in a string. For the cases I encounter, that feels like primitive obsession since you can always use EXTRACT in a query to simplify output.
2. If will you need to lookup the date and time after an event occurred, write a separate field that includes timezone offset field (e.g. -1, +1, -8, etc.) in case you want to look up exactly when an event previously happened. This (mostly) covers you from timezone shifts that occur at that particular location between when you wrote the data vs some later date. This falls apart if the timezone you're converting to also changed their timezone between now and the event. Also, if your timezone shifts between when you wrote the record and the actual event.
I wonder if someone has a temporal record of timezone shifts. You could solve a lot of edge cases with something like that. Then you could write a query that asks for the timezone's offset as of a specific date. That would make life much easier. Then you could skip the timezone offset field I mentioned in #2.
It's no huge secret that most large, modern countries are researching vaccines for these dangerous diseases. There are quite a few of these labs on U.S. soil as well last I checked. I don't get what the scandal is supposed to be about, other than ensuring the labs remain safe during the war?
> You seem to be talking about compile-time versus runtime
Yes 100%! I was talking runtime in reference to Ruby and later Python.
> That seems to harm rather than help your previous claim. In untyped languages, in principle every object has to be treated as dynamic.
It is rather confusing and even counterintuitive, but being dynamic does not mean a language must also be untyped. For example, Python is both strongly typed and dynamically typed at once. [1] It's objects have a definitive type, but you can swap out objects of any type out at any time (a=1 ... a="foo") using the same variable. That makes optimization rather tricky as you can imagine.
> Rewriting critical software infrastructure (infostructure) to more reliable typed languages
Instagram (and Threads) is still using Django, which is even slower than Rails. Once you get to unicorn scale, your app is going to bespoke, with some microservices, and super custom stuff. If you can go faster in a gradually typed language, that can be a very good reason to choose one.
> untyped languages are not performant
Typing generally slows down languages, not speed them up because of all the additional checks that must be done. The dynamic stuff is part of what slows down languages like Python and makes them tricky to optimize.
> It’s like a tourist visa. The visa itself is not a pathway to anything.
> ...
> People who come here on a K1 get permanent residency once they get married through a different statutory route: 8 USC 1154. But that has nothing to with the K1 itself.
The UCIS explicitly links the K-1 (which has the words temporary and non-immigrant visa scattered throughout) to a de facto path to permanent status (see below). The fact that the two are different statutes is moving the goal posts (i.e., a logical fallacy). The government clearly sees them as a linked pathway to permanent status.
> "If you are a U.S. citizen who wants to bring your foreign fiancé(e) to the United States in order to get married"
> The K1 visa isn’t a stepping stone to permanent status. It’s just a convenience that allows people to have the wedding in the U.S. instead of the spouse’s home country.
There's a reason they require a medical exam to be filed with the consulate as a part of the K-1 application, they expect you to be in the U.S. for a long time. K style visas are a lot more than a convenience, they are the law of the land and have been so for nearly 75 years.
> I don’t want to defend the cure administration, but it’s very common and normal for a country to require a person to leave to change status.
This new policy is different than the "flag poling" you've described. The new guidance requires immigrants to return to their country of origin, then apply for the change in status, and wait in their country of origin while the change in status is being processed/considered which can take many years. If the status changed is approved, they can move back to the US.
Because the words temporary amd nonimmigrant don't carry the meaning that you're imbuing into them. Fiance visas operate very similarly to these dual intent H1 visas. You're granted a temporary nonimmigrant status while you pursue a permanent one. The words nonimmigrant and temporary doesn't exclude pursuing a permanent status at all.
In the case of a K-1, it is assumed you will transition from a temporary nonimmigrant status to a permanent status. [1] Requiring folks to move to the U.S., and then go back out of the country to get a green card, only to return again, is absurd. That absurd dance for both K1 and H1 w/dual intents is the reason the laws and guidance provided to agents changed starting in the 50's through the 90's. These changes in guidance to agents are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress people coming to the U.S. lawfully, which is absurd and deeply anti-American.
Warships vs. insurers willing to underwrite a policy for merchant vessels to transit are definitely two very different things. The Iranian Government has a much higher pain threshold/resolve than Trump, but they're also in a lot more pain with the Gulf of Oman closed. Both sides are losing, who will get tired of it first?
I had not heard about that transit, thanks for sharing! The ships mentioned in our two links match up, so it certainly sounds like they spent a some number days in the Persian Gulf and transited back. There was also a transit that occurred in April which mentioned other ships joining the operation in the future, not sure if that happened or not.
> There is a reason the US Navy fled the Persian Gulf on Feb 26 and has not returned since.
Two US Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers transited Hormuz a couple of weeks ago without damage and are still there last I heard. The Iranians were really upset, but couldn't do anything to stop it.
China hasn't seen 10% GDP growth for 15 years. It will likely fall in the 4-5% range this year as it was last year. China has a self-inflicted population decline problem that the U.S. doesn't, which will weigh on China's future growth prospects.
This is brilliant, I was not aware of ITCSS. Thank you for sharing! The link you shared fits my brain a lot better than pure BEM/CUBE, which works but always felt weird and uncertain to my style. Sprinkling a bit of BEM on top of ITCSS feels just right. shame.scss is the snarky cherry on top. Thanks again, you have enlightened at least on person today! :)
Iran cannot get their oil out of their country fast enough. Iran's oil storage facilities are filling up, as evidenced by them bringing in derelict tankers just to temporarily store oil. If they have to start capping wells, they will almost certainly never produce at the same rate again, if they can start the flow at all since capping typically damages the well to some extent. If it comes to that, Iran will be permanently diminished. Hard to see how Iran will come out of this a winner as the article projects. You need money to pay for a war.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/@KevinPowell
[1] https://www.kevinpowell.co/courses/