HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

munmaek

no profile record

comments

munmaek
·7 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
In an Ideal World, sure.

The Reality that most people live in is that we need money to pay the rent, like right about now. This limits the opportunities available to us because we simply cannot wait to find a fulfilling and justly compensated job.

I simply will not work for low(er) income just to satisfy my need for fulfillment (at work). You know what's better than that? Financial security. Retiring Early. Owning my own house instead of renting.

I would rather get paid a lot of money and not really work on very interesting things, if that meant I could retire a lot earlier and then do whatever I wanted for the rest of my life.

When work ends for the day, I work on my personal & open source projects, or engage in other intellectually stimulating activities like learning a language, etc.

I think the only exception at this point would be me taking slightly lower pay if it meant living and working comfortably abroad, because I want to live abroad for an extended amount of time, personally, so that tradeoff would be fine for me. In all likeliness that's going to be exactly what I do after I own my own house (at 26yo), and work under my own consulting business.
munmaek
·7 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
No, most comments say to find fulfillment through personal projects/hobbies.

Work is work; it doesn't necessarily have to be the most satisfying or fulfilling experience ever. That's always going to be the case if you're working for someone else. Earning a boatload of money (and saving it) to retire early isn't anything to scoff at.

This also assumes one can find a more fulfilling job elsewhere (with ideal compensation). Which is just that, an assumption. If, and only if, such a job were lined up, then it might be time to move on.
munmaek
·7 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
It's obvious youtube is for mainstream media now, with content creators being a leftover wart, minuscule on youtube's radar.

Content creators deal with an opaque algorithm that demonetizes videos based on how the wind is blowing, or it would appear. Weeks or months of work can be wiped out by an arbitrary demonetization preventing content creators from getting paid for their video's views.

JonTron discusses this [1]. It's very easy to violate the "advertiser-friendly" guidelines. They're vague: "violence", "harmful content", "controversial or sensitive issues". Under profanity: "strong profanity used in video even if bleeped for comedy, documentary, news, or educational purposes". ??!

It has been obvious for a long time that daily content uploads are better for the algorithm than longer, quality videos uploaded less frequently. If you look at the LinusTechTips network of channels, they produce at least 5-7 videos per week.

[0]: An analysis of 7 months worth of trending tab videos, or roughly ~40k videos that reached the trending tab. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8

[1]: https://youtu.be/TZ31u3vI934?t=364
munmaek
·7 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
Not only is it manipulated, it's flagrantly obvious. PewDiePie for example trends in many countries except the US [e.g. 45 times in Canada, 42 times in Germany vs 1 time in the US], and it's not just him either but many "controversial" channels.

Source: an analysis of 40,000 trending videos [7 months of trending tab videos]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8
munmaek
·7 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
This... doesn't make much sense. An open-source license (one that is actually recognized as such by OSI[0]), means that anyone can fork the code and contribute to it at the very minimum. The only way to stop this would be to use a non open source license (or none at all, making it effectively source-available), but nobody would want to donate to someone making only source-available or closed-source projects.

The reality is that people would just have to choose, unfortunately.

[0]: https://opensource.org/licenses