la_barba · HackerTrans

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I think apart from the scale, they view labor as a risk, rather than an asset. The ironic part to me is they're hiring "genius" level talent to create these dummy level algorithms.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Being in the vaccine industry.. we take that term to mean reduced stress, back to normal life, and dollar signs.. :P

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

You already know that Open Source is not the same as Free Software. There is very little public support for Stallmans idea of free software values, so your use of the term "we" is puzzling. FWICT, the HN audience primarily consists of people who want to start companies to make MONEY, not engage in social movements over software freedoms. Its impossible to say this without sounding rude but, you seem like a Slashdot anti-MS nutter. Also, there is simply no reason for MS to hate open source or free software. What MS is doing is already successful and they're making tons of cash. That doesn't mean its good, or that we have to agree with their position.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

The other thing is, programmers love re-inventing things. Its the standard programmer mindset of wanting to work on problems that are one or two levels of difficulty over their currently capability. And so, they fuck shit up, because only someone whose been in the weeds, knows the ins, outs and the corner cases, is capable actually doing a good job. (IMHO, $0.02, YMMV etc)

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

> No RAII, so you have to explicitly handle cleanup at every point you may have to early-return an error (goto fail etc...).

I think RAII can be useful, but I've never found any use for it in systems level code that I write. Most of the time I'm dealing with resources that were allocated inside a systems library or an external component which just gives me a handle to the resource. I think this is a common enough scenario in systems code that I don't think its just me.

e.g.

    1. X = CreateResource()
    2. Y = TransformResource(X)
    3. ProcessNewResource(Y)
    4. Z = TransformResource(Y)
    5. etc. etc.

And so as you transform that resource, you will have multiple ways to unwind the resource depending on where the failure occurs. Even if you wrap X in some RAII container, you don't know what your destructor is going to look like.

Another con to RAII, especially when paired with shared-ownership smart pointers, is you lose predictability over your resource deallocs. You never know when the last pointer is going go out of scope, and if its a 'heavy' resource with a complicated unwind, you're going to get a CPU spike at an indeterminate time. I deal primarily with industrial automation code and I much prefer to have a smooth/even CPU graph. I think this issue is more relevant to systems code which is the context of this thread.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Okay fair enough.. :)

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Google could have designed the system where each claim must be specific to a video url, time, and duration. (I think they have made changes recently to do that, but I'm not sure if they're active) That way the copyright owners are left having to review this giant database of video content. Google helpfully runs audio finger-printing on every video and then lets copyright holders issue bulk claims.

>And if there is no negative consequence for making a false claim, then yes, that's exactly what would happen

Google can protect their creators and counter-sue on their behalf or set aside monies for legal defense funds.

>human reviewers looking at a huge amount of content.

More importantly, humans can be part of the appeals process and will be able to determine if someone was illegitimately targeted. As you can imagine its possible to design various review workflows where humans get involved after a certain level of escalation, or after other automated means have been exhausted etc. Also whats your definition of huge? You seem to now agree with me that this is not every single minute of YouTube content as you originally indicated.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I fully agree. I'm just pushing back against the sentiment of shitting on the little guy, because of a personal opinion that what this person is doing is vapid or devoid of value to me.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Google has designed a system where a power dynamic where the copyright owner largely gets the ultimate say because of a combination of artificial "intelligence" algorithms, the ability to perform bulk claims, and googles indifference. To insert a human element in terms of an appeals process or deciding which claims have merit, etc, has nothing to do with reviewing every single minute of content that is uploaded on YouTube.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I don't want to do math with flawed data. Every minute of uploaded content is not going to face copyright strikes, and does not need to be reviewed.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Your point seems to be hiring humans is wrong, because YouTube incorporated more AI to pretend like they're doing something, remain in the good books of copyright folks and make themselves more money. Is that correct? So, what if a person does not sympathize with Google or care about them making more money? Ultimately your perspective is shaped by whose side you're on.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Okay? But you can apply that logic anywhere to anything. Its also a "frightful gamble" that Google needs Microsofts and Apples blessing to operate on their platform. They have intrinsically tied themselves to a particular company's product. They also need Cisco's blessing for routing their packets. The default configuration of all of these products could be to ban google's products and services because they spy on their users or -insert-other-privacy-rationale-. I don't think just because you use and depend on another companies product that you should expect them to be malicious towards you.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Your math is flawed. This is about reviewing videos that face copyright strikes. Every single minute of uploaded content does not need to be reviewed. And on top of that there are several technology aids that can be used to shorten review times - while still having some human involvement.

> If their claim is found to be without merit, they forfeit the bounty to the person who created the video in question.

That would mean there needs to be an appeals process and humans who do the reviews, right?

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

I don't think that stat is relevant. This is about reviewing only those videos that face copyright claims.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Yes, whats more likely is that one of the countless bean counters at Google saw the long-tail revenue pie chart/breakdown and thought to themselves "Hmm! Would you look at that!" and just decided to not upset the apple cart..

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Can you explain exactly the level of scale you're talking about? How many humans do you think would be needed to handle copyright claims?

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

You don't need scripts to know who visited your website. Scripts can potentially tell you how many are blocking your ads though. But its always a cat and mouse game. I prefer to simply avoid sites that show shitty ads.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

You think you're doing that, but in reality the site thinks they're hot shit, and people just are annoyed with the ads.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

By "we" do you mean only people who agree with you? Or do you accept that in a democratic society there can be ads? Personally, I don't block ads on principle. I simply don't visit websites that feature blaring over the top ads or otherwise feature annoyances. When you block ads you are explicitly signalling that you are receiving something of value by visiting the website. I prefer to not send that signal.

la_barba

7 tahun yang laludiscuss

Fair enough, yes the convenience factor can drive more sales which is mutually beneficial, I'll give you that. But the OS can still put you in control and let you run things inside a sandbox. Its the 30% money grab that I was complaining about because the app store provides no assurances on anything, and so we are pretty much back to square one. Its still a "random" binary off the internet. And for a basic sanity check, you can scan the hash to determine if its a known malware.

I think its just the same bullshit as Walmart and Target selling toxic toys and then shifting blame onto the original supplier. Not sure what happened to the lawsuit though..

Agree to your second point on fraud/hassles,etc...

comments