We are in the hell dimension. Headphone manufacturers are sent to punish us. It's the only explanation that makes sense: these are not the headphones we need, but they are the headphones we deserve.
After removing buttons and switches with physical semantics, extending response latency, and decreasing reliability, they were running out of ways to torment us. The slow, obnoxious voices gave them a bit more runway. They even deal bonus combo damage when the headphones try and fail to connect to devices you told them to forget with their app (which made you sign up for an account, of course) and the slow, obnoxious voices agonizingly narrate the saga of failure before you are allowed to listen to your music.
I am currently on Bose QC Ultra 1 specifically because it allowed disabling the voice whereas WH-1000XM5 didn't (it had a setting, but it only applied to a subset). Did they get rid of that on QCU 2?
The latency is annoying, and based on the fact that there are 8K hz poll rate mice, latency doesn’t have to be an issue with wireless.
Happy to be corrected, I bet you can via the app. Thanks for the tip, I’ll look into it! My wife’s QCU 2s are absolutely luxurious and live up to the “comfort” name 100%.
Mice can do that because they require so little bandwidth. Bluetooth has a latency/bw tradeoff (this is why Bluetooth microphones are so horrible, though the handsfree profile is also neglected generally).
I took that to be what it was intended it convey, and what Dimon wanted people to feel about what he said. That maybe they should poke around their own books but he wasn’t telling people “well ‘08 all over again”
My own read of the subtext was something a bit different. Dimon saw something he really didn’t like and my guess would be that more than just a handful of people at JP Morgan were having their next few days or longer personal plans cancelled—- or that it had already settled from something like that— to find whatever they had in the way of cockroaches. And so Dimon’s public statement was a soft nudge to try and get others to do the same, cautiously and slowly without panicking.
It’s tea leaves but the time since then seems to bear that out, with right now’s world economic volatility being a good opportunity for many places to go a little more aggressively in reigning in whatever they have in cockroach’s with some cover from that volatility and distraction to not have to explain too much more or get too much scrutiny that would accelerate things beyond manageable.
Overall, my take was that Dimon is still probably pissed off about SV bank and trying to make sure whatever shape or size this private credit rot may have doesn’t go down quite that haphazardly.
The regulators were modeling a scenario where private credit was dragged down by a problem elsewhere in the economy, not one where the rest of the economy was dragged down by private credit. Everyone understands that center of a financial implosion is always worse than its effects on the broader economy, but regulators aren't tasked with stopping the explosion at ground zero, they are tasked with stopping contagion dominoes from falling, so that's what they model.
It already happened. Why do you think China showered their EV industry in government money and attention?
Smog reduction is nice, but cars were never the main offender and denial was working OK. The real answer is that they were reducing geopolitical vulnerability to oil cutoff. It's a long road and they aren't at the end of it yet, but they can plan a few moves ahead. Unlike our guy, who poked a stick into the hornet nest and was surprised by the outcome.
...which is where the "Marx in a Moustache" critique comes from, because it's all just immediately downstream from inequality.
If you can slap a moustache on economic inequality, you avoid academic accusations of unoriginality and the popular antibodies against "he who must not be named." This is good for the author, but for the reader? It's about as useful as trying to stick a fake moustache over that magnificent beard.
I don’t know what you consider to be an advertisement but just off the top of my head:
Many (most?) streaming services advertise their own shows and other content ahead of other content you elect to watch even on ad free subs.
Hulu’s ad free subs have some shows that show unambiguous ads.
Prime and others muddy their interfaces with others’ “channels” and content that you can subscribe to through their service. They also show other content you can purchase or rent through them that aren’t part of your package. These things are included in search, viewing UI lists, and banner ads.
This is untrue in the US. There were ad supported cable TV channels before 1980. Most of the first cable TV channels were ad supported from the start or adopted advertising within the first few years of going on-air. For example, TBS, ESPN, and USA had ads from day one, with those launching in 1976, 1980, and 1977 respectively. Nickelodeon was ad-free at its launch in 1979 but adopted advertising in 1984.
And this also ignores that for decades before "cable" was just all the broadcast stations piped over coax as a paid service. That had ads, since those broadcast stations had ads. And even when cable channels did start appearing, most of the channels on the dial we're still these broadcast channels. So most content you were paying for had ads since day one.
Creators including ads in their videos are not part of youtube. Youtube does not get a cut from those ads or play any role in making them. I know it's confusing, but those ads are part of the creator's videos that the creators put there themselves with deals they brokered outside of youtube.
Youtube likely tolerates it because even with a 60% revenue share going go creators, often half of viewers pay nothing (no ad views or subscription), so sponsored segments can fill the gap for the creators.
Note that Youtube premium does include the ability to skip sponsored segments though.
And your evidence is a screenshot in a reddit post from 2 years ago? Rather than
"Open the app and check", which I did, and there a no ads. Nor have I ever seen that promo from the screenshot, or any of those other things you mention.
I'm guessing you are complaining about something that you don't even have?
YouTube has control of their platform. They have enough control to detect and demonetize people when they say such "harmful" and "dangerous" words as "kill" and "sex". This is further evidenced by the fact that they provide the sponsored segment skip feature that you reference[0]. They know this is going on and they allow it, despite it ruining the service that members pay for.
If content creators can't live off of the ad revenue that YouTube offers, then that is another thing to lump the blame of at the feet of YouTube. They not only turn a blind eye to content creators ruining the service I pay for, YouTube is the one themselves who has created the conditions in which the content creator feels the need to pursue external advertising.
There is obvioulsy enough advertising money in the world to support both YouTube and content creators, because that is exactly what is happening right now: advertisers are paying either YouTube or the content creator directly. For some reason, a lot of content creators can't make it by just working with YouTube, despite there being enough advertiser demand for it. That tells me that YouTube is being stingy.
[0] Which, BTW, many content creators are not properly marking up their videos to allow for the skip feature to work.
First off the content creators don't mark up where sponsored segments are, the algo builds on statistics of where people skip. So if a video is fresh, it might not work.
Second, you are capable of building a coherent argument, but left out that almost half of viewers don't pay. When you are a child, paying for things is frustrating and annoying, so the ones taking the money are bad. When you grow up, you realize that everything costs money to everyone, and taking money isn't really nefarious, and paying for what you consume is just honest. If you don't like the cost of something, you don't buy it. If you like the cost, you pay and it's yours.
Obviously you have passed that threshold of reasoning, so it might be worthwhile to rebalance your argument around the fact that almost half (30-50%) of viewers still feel entitled to free viewing of content. They don't boycott it, they still consume it, but they don't compensate. That leaves the honest ones to bear the cost of their consumption.
"You pay and it's yours." Which is exactly why, having paid for an ad-free service, people are miffed when ads appear anyway. I'm not going to take on the responsibility of educating you as to the examples that exist, because that's your own responsibility. Not only because we have to educate ourselves, but because you made the unsupported claim in the first place that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Proving a negative is very difficult, as we with all this glorious mental firepower know. In a world this large, it's a poor bet on a statistical basis alone.
What is your point here? Yes, if I were to pay for a movie or show, I would find it unacceptable if it were to contain paid product placement. Do you think prominent logos in media are an accident?
And youtube could easily ban third party sponsors in their ToS, have all advertising on their platform go through them, and completely remove it for paying customers. Just like Netflix can refuse to host any shows with product placement. It's entirely their own product decision to allow ads in their "ad free" offering.
It's not just repulsive — it's the complete destruction of tool through intense overuse!
Speaking of overusing something until it becomes cringe, has anyone shown their kids Firefly? Does it still hold up after the Joss Whedon signature bathos (and other tics) became a tentpole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and created an abundance of cultural antibodies?
My kids liked it when they were younger teens. But we'd also already been through Buffy, which they liked.
There were a few times we cringed a bit (with both shows) but overall stood the test of time. I didn't watch Buffy & Angel first time around, so it was a bit of a cultural moment I got caught up on. And it was nice to revisit Firefly, the little bit of it we got.
The writing of Firefly was top notch and still holds up great. The MCU tried to imitate the style and mostly failed. But it helped that Firefly was much less overwrought in general.
If you cured 100% of all cancer it would only reduce US deaths by 20%. Clearly we should conclude that cancer isn't a problem and isn't worth curing, and also that heart disease and unintentional injuries and so on are also not problems and also not worth trying to fix.
They invented a dumb fix and complained that it wasn't good. Or, since we're being artistic in this thread: pulled a straw man out of their ass and complained that it smelled foul.
I did the same with cancer/mortality to demonstrate the same trick in a setting where its flaws were more obvious. It's true that I said the quiet part out loud in a way that the post I was mocking did not, but the quiet part is especially important to debunk so I make no apology for doing so.
After removing buttons and switches with physical semantics, extending response latency, and decreasing reliability, they were running out of ways to torment us. The slow, obnoxious voices gave them a bit more runway. They even deal bonus combo damage when the headphones try and fail to connect to devices you told them to forget with their app (which made you sign up for an account, of course) and the slow, obnoxious voices agonizingly narrate the saga of failure before you are allowed to listen to your music.
I am currently on Bose QC Ultra 1 specifically because it allowed disabling the voice whereas WH-1000XM5 didn't (it had a setting, but it only applied to a subset). Did they get rid of that on QCU 2?
reply