Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jjulius's commentslogin

>Why would they? The entire point of YouTube Premium is removing ads.

You could've easily made this argument about Hulu right before it did the exact same thing being described here.

>If they put back ads, I believe that most people will simply cancel their subscription and get a renewed interest in ad-blockers.

Doing this successfully on your smart TV is a barrier that most non-techy folk aren't going to climb over. In the case of Hulu, most people just... accepted it. Same with the Amazon Prime ads you mentioned.


> You could've easily made this argument about Hulu right before it did the exact same thing being described here.

The main point of paying for Hulu was to be able to watch the shows. Youtube doesn't have that. (They tried to have premium-only shows but it was never much and as far as I can tell they stopped a long time ago.) So while youtube could obviously increase the price another $3, I don't see how they could split off a viable premium-with-ads plan. The premium features outside of ad removal are close to worthless.


This was true of Cable as well.

As a huge fan of the type of music you're probably describing, I'd love to know what artist/recording you're referring to here. Surely with the band's blessing and ~30 years of time passed, it'd be okay to divulge...

Not OP, but my guess is Underworld.

Edit: or Erasure?


Huge fan here, that was my immediate guess as well. :)

>This place is fucking dead.

The door is right over there, feel free to see yourself out at any time. :)


>The only thing that will be embarrassing is how badly your comments, and those like yours will age

Hubris.


tl;dr - "I will dismiss this because of the time I've been spending in a pro-AI bubble".

I never needed to be in a pro-AI bubble to dismiss bullshit; I wrote my capstone Philosophy paper on AI and Existentialism back in 2014.

I am dismissing the neo-luddites because they are stupid and wrong, not because I am in a pro-AI bubble.


There is emotional bias and stubbornness in nearly all of your responses in this thread, the very same traits you lambasted HN broadly for in another comment. Rather than calling people, "stupid and wrong", why don't you make your case?

If you don't want to be bothered to argue your points, and this place truly chaps your ass to the degree it does, why even waste your time commenting at all when, according to you, there's a more fun place with bigger brains that-a-way, as far as you're concerned? points

I mean, it takes more energy and effort to be angry and annoyed than to just move on and leave us luddites in the dust.


It is pretty emotional seeing a place with people you respected and learned from for so long, where you could rely on for the place to find the newest and most interesting things happening in tech, where people in the know discussed the technical aspects; to now neo-luddites everywhere bashing shit they don't understand, ON A FUCKING TECH FORUM; like THE tech forum.

I feel like I'm living in some kind of bizzarro world now when I read anything AI related on HN. It's insane.


Yes, we know, you've said that a few times already.

You could foster that high-level dialogue you seem to value so much by trying to better articulate your view so that the plebs understand, kinda like I suggested just there. Ya know, "be the change you want to see in the world" and all that, but okay...


> bashing shit they don't understand, ON A FUCKING TECH FORUM; like THE tech forum.

Or: they actually understand the tech, and see its limitations. Unlike wide-eyed neophytes and zealots.

Tech forum doesn't mean "uncritically accept and love any and all technology".

Oh, and they don't find the need to sling insults like monkey sling feces just because someone doesn't agree with them.


"Or: they actually understand the tech, and see its limitations. Unlike wide-eyed neophytes and zealots."

I'm sure you super qualified rando's on HN know and understand the tech and know its limitations better than the Google engineers actually making the stuff.

Real ripe coming from a guy who can't even refactor a few lines of code correctly with an AI.

I couldn't roll my eyes any harder.


If you hate everyone here so much, why did you come back today? Further, why did you come back just to spew more negative, unhelpful comments that just parrot what you've ranted about already, rather than attempt to foster the "smart" dialogue that you wax poetic about?

>... with Gen Z reportedly leading the way...

The kids are alright.


Shattered dreams

They've been saying that since the Boomers were kids, look where that led us

I'm biased, but I think Gen X turned out okay ;-).

I'm also biased, but I think millenials turned out okay ;).

In all seriousness, I agree. Millenials got a lot of crap, but by the numbers they look pretty successful to me.

As a geriatric millenial[1] myself, I approve this message :)

[1] https://fortune.com/2024/04/23/four-types-millennials-geriat...


> I'm biased, but I think Gen X turned out okay

As a Gen Xer myself (1973) I disagree.

The widest margin of Trump voters by generation was Gen X.

Gen X has largely morphed into the boomers they used to despise.


Agreed. As a kid it felt there was so much energy to make things better, to fight the system. So depressing growing up and seeing so many peers and idols becoming the same inward-looking grey old farts they used to mock.

Perhaps this is inevitable.


> Perhaps this is inevitable.

There is certainly some logic behind the old joke about young people with no heart and old people with no brain. It's natural to become a bit more conservative as you age. Though I would clarify that I think it is natural to become more of a normal conservative; the current conservative party in the US is ... not.


I'm not seeing that. Trump support in 2024 was pretty strong across the board. The born-in-1960s edged out the other decades, but it was not by a wide margin (and I consider GenX more of a 1970s phenomenon than 1960s anyway).

If you want to pick a generation to complain about, look how hard the younger folks swung in favor of Trump in 2020 and then even more in 2024.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte...


>It was impossible to proceed further.

Does your mouse have a scroll wheel?


It does.

But my mouse's scroll wheel is not a swipey-thing.


But at least it moves things from "impossible" to "possible"! :)

I didn't consider that it meant to use the scroll wheel and likewise closed the page before discovering that.

It's possible that I will never try visiting that website again. ;)

For many of us who backpack in the US for long distances and many days at the time, the remoteness is exactly the point. The lack of those huts/refugios is one of the primary drivers for why OP's friend said what they said.

My money is on the likelihood that most GMail users started marking these emails as spam, and GMail recognized that overriding trend and began to redirect the emails accordingly on a broader scale.

Essentially, the people FontAwesome thinks will want to hear about their new features have actually, collectively, said, "No thanks," and FontAwesome is struggling to accept that.


I think part of the problem is that Google has conflated the "mark as spam" button with "unsubscribe" and people just mash it as a shortcut to "make this email go away".

Most of the email that I get with an "unsubscribe" link is spam. It's not the user's problem that unethical companies decide "opt-out" is consent. It's not the user's problem that unethical companies take seconds to start spamming you but days to process an "unsubscribe" request. It's not the user's fault that companies regularly add new categories of spam users have to "opt out" from.

Unsubscribe is a trap, setting up a rule to mark every incoming email from a spamming company's domain as spam automatically is the only thing that works. Or tediously hitting the button manually, for nontechnical users.


In the android app when I hit report spam, a dialog pops up suggesting I try to unsubscribe first, and shows both buttons

Leaving out key parts of a quote is a disingenuous way to attempt to make a counter-argument, especially when the full quote clearly contradicts your second sentence.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: