> It'll be noteworthy to see the cost-per-task on ARC AGI v2.
Already live. gpt-5.2-pro scores a new high of 54.2% with a cost/task of $15.72. The previous best was Gemini 3 Pro (54% with a cost/task of $30.57).
The best bang-for-your-buck is the new xhigh on gpt-5.2, which is 52.9% for $1.90, a big improvement on the previous best in this category which was Opus 4.5 (37.6% for $2.40).
I’ve gone through this process before and while it was more work it did not take 30 minutes.
I presented a student ID and was escorted through the security line. My baggage was selected for additional screening and I received a pat down search.
I went through an identical procedure on the return flight, right down to the exact words the TSA agent spoke to me while conducting the pat down.
I've also gone through this process, it did take about 30 minutes in my case. That also included waiting for a TSA agent to be available to even start the process. So YMMV, perhaps based on how busy the airport is at the time.
They had me answer a series of questions about past addresses etc, it wasn't just an extra pat down in my case. After answering all the questions correctly they allowed me to continue.
Bezos’ mom had him at 17, his biological father owned a bike shop, and his mother remarried when Bezos was 4 to a Cuban immigrant who came to the country at 16 and ended up working as a petroleum engineer.
They wound up middle class after all that, but I certainly wouldn’t say Bezos came from a “wealthy family”.
Bezos' parents lent him $250k to start Amazon. The point is that by the time Bezos started Amazon they were wealthy and could provide him this safety net. Not many middle class families would be able to loan their kid that much money.
okay but $250k is still $250k right? Most people in the world, for most parts of the world, don't see that kind of money in an entire lifetime of work. Most people think privilege means a trust fund, but a $250k loan of US dollars (life-savings or not) is also a privilege that most people don't have.
i think in this thread the goalposts were slowly moved. people were initially talking about success being predicted by having the excess necessary to comfortably take many shots on goal. it seems like we've granted that this $250k shot was a one-time thing.
it is true but irrelevant to the original topic that this is more money than the global poor ever see, and that this is more money that most people get to have. i don't think anyone was arguing that this represents zero privilege
Do you have a source for that being their life savings?
Most of your points have nothing to do with their wealth. Why would it suggest they’re poor if his mom had him at 17 and was taking night classes while raising him? She wasn’t employed, that just sounds like she herself was still able to take risks beyond her means probably because her father was wealthy.
Do you have a source for that not being their life savings? It sounds like you're just making assumptions and guesses as well; if you're going to assert Bezos came from wealth in the first place, you have to back that up. Perusing the "early life" section of Bezos' Wikipedia page doesn't suggest to me that he came from money, at least. But I don't see anyone on either side of the argument presenting anything beyond that.
> Do you have a source for that not being their life savings?
I mean there are many sources that talk about the $300k he received from his family to start Amazon, it's a famous story. None of those sources mention that it was his family's life savings. I don't really know how to provide a source that says it wasn't his family's life savings, but I also can't provide a source that says he wasn't an alien from Zeta Reticula. This is generally the problem with proving a negative and why the onus is usually on the person making a positive assertion.
> if you're going to assert Bezos came from wealth in the first place, you have to back that up.
I did, I'm saying that a family that can give their son $300k to start a business in 1993 is wealthy. That would be about $674k today.
Yep, my father, with no business training or college was funded by my grandfather and was in business for years, decades. He ultimately failed without any savings and died in poverty. Being a small business owner was the only job he ever had.
My grandfather was similar--he was the first one to leave the farm life and tried several different careers and businesses. He worked for a railroad, was a realtor, owned a lumber yard, and lastly owned a delicatessen. The lumber yard nearly destroyed the entire family because he would sell on credit and then contractors failed to pay up on time. It was a huge disaster and the the thing is, this was way before the Home Depot national type chains or the "84 Lumber" regional type chains and if he had had any business acumen at all, he could have been the franchise. People don't know what they don't know. Anyways, my dad worked for my grandfather for free for several years and screwed up his life quite a bit doing so in order to "save the family" and I think my dad has told me this damn story every single time I have called him on the telephone for at least the past 30 years. His complex over the whole situation must be enormous!
This is why I never started a business myself. I figured it was a family curse to fail at business.
Bezo’s maternal grandfather worked for the Department of Energy and owned a ranch in Texas. They were wealthy enough to have $300k to give to Jeff in 1993.
For one, the simple answer is incomplete. It gives the fully unwrapped type of the array but you still need something like
type FlatArray<T extends unknown[]> = Flatten<T[number]>[]
The main difference is that the first, rest logic in the complex version lets you maintain information TypeScript has about the length/positional types of the array. After flattening a 3-tuple of a number, boolean, and string array TypeScript can remember that the first index is a number, the second index is a boolean, and the remaining indices are strings. The second version of the type will give each index the type number | boolean | string.
There's a lot of history behind WhatWG that revolves around XML.
WhatWG is focused on maintaining specs that browsers intend to implement and maintain. When Chrome, Firefox, and Safari agree to remove XSLT that effectively decides for WhatWG's removal of the spec.
I wouldn't put too much weight behind who originally proposed the removal. It's a pretty small world when it comes to web specifications, the discussions likely started between vendors before one decided to propose it.
The issue is you can’t say to put little weight who originally proposed the removal if the other poster is putting all the weight on Google, who didn’t even initially propose it
I wouldn't put weight on the initial proposer either way. As best I've been able to keep up with the topic, google has been the party leading the charge arguing for the removal. I thought they were also the first to announce their decision, though maybe my timing is off there.
By browser vendors, you mean? Yes it seems like they were in agreement and many here seem to think that was largely driven by google though that's speculation.
Users and web developers seemed much less on board though[1][2], enough that Google referenced that in their announcement.
Yes, that's what I mean. In this comment tree, you've said:
> google has been the party leading the charge arguing for the removal.
and
> many here seem to think that was largely driven by google though that's speculation
I'm saying that I don't see any evidence that this was "driven by google". All the evidence I see is that Google, Mozilla, and Apple were all pretty immediately in agreement that removing XSLT was the move they all wanted to make.
You're telling us that we shouldn't think too hard about the fact that a Mozilla staffer opened the request for removal, and that we should notice that Google "led the charge". It would be interesting if somebody could back that up with something besides vibes, because I don't even see how there was a charge to lead. Among the groups that agreed, that agreement appears to have been quick and unanimous.
In the github issues I have followed, including those linked above, I primarily saw Google engineers arguing for removing XSLT from the spec. I'm not saying they are the sole architects of the spec removal, and I'm not claiming to have seen all related discussions.
I am sharing my view, though, that Google engineers have been the majority share of browser engineer comments I've seen arguing for removing XSLT.
Probably if Mozilla didn't push for it initially XSLT would stay around for another decade or longer.
Their board syphons the little money that is left out of their "foundation + corporation" combo, and they keep cutting people from Firefox dev team every year. Of course they don't want to maintain pieces of web standards if it means extra million for their board members.
I'm convinced Mozilla is purposefully engineered to be rudderless: C-suite draw down huge salaries, approve dumb, mission-orthgonal objectives, in order to keep Mozilla itself impotent in ever threatening Google.
Mozilla is Google's antitrust litigation sponge. But it's also kept dumb and obedient. Google would never want Mozilla to actually be a threat.
If Mozilla had ever wanted a healthy side business, it wasn't in Pocket, XR/VR, or AI. It would have been in building a DevEx platform around MDN and Rust. It would have synergized with their core web mission. Those people have since been let go.
> If Mozilla had ever wanted a healthy side business, it wasn't in Pocket, XR/VR, or AI. It would have been in building a DevEx platform around MDN and Rust[…] Those people have since been let go.
The first sentence isn't wrong, but the last sentence is confused in the same way that people who assume that Wikimedia employees have been largely responsible for the content on Wikipedia are confused about how stuff actually makes it into Wikipedia. In reality, WMF's biggest contribution is providing infrastructure costs and paying engineers to develop the Mediawiki platform that Wikipedia uses.
Likewise, a bunch of the people who built up MDN weren't and never could be "let go", because they were never employed by Mozilla to work on MDN to begin with.
(There's another problem, too, which is that addition to selling short a lot of people who are responsible for making MDN as useful as it is but never got paid for it, it presupposes that those who were being paid to work on MDN shouldn't have been let go.)
So the idea is that some group has been perpetuating a decade or so's worth of ongoing conspiracy to ensure that Mozilla continues to exist but makes decisions that "keep Mozilla itself impotent"?
That seems to fail occam's razor pretty hard, given the competing hypotheses for each of their decisions include "Mozilla staff think they're doing a smart thing but they're wrong" and "Mozilla staff are doing a smart thing, it's just not what you would have done".
I guess you mean except Mozilla and Safari...which are the two other competing browser engines? It's not like a it's a room full of Chromium based browsers.
Mozilla has proven they can exist in a free market; really and truly, they do compete.
Safari is what I'm concerned about. Without Apple's monopoly control, Safari is guaranteed to be a dead engine. WebKit isn't well-enough supported on Linux and Windows to compete against Blink and Gecko, which suggests that Safari is the most expendable engine of the three.
I really can’t imagine Safari is going anywhere. Meanwhile the Mozilla Foundation has been very poorly steering the ship for several years and has rightfully earned the reputation it has garnered as a result. There’s a reason there are so many superior forks. They waste their time on the strangest pet projects.
Honestly the one thing I don’t begrudge them is taking Google’s money to make them the default search engine. That’s a very easy deal with the devil to make especially because it’s so trivial to change your default search engine which I imagine a large percentage of Firefox users do with glee. But what they have focused on over the last couple of years has been very strange to watch.
I know Proton gets mixed feelings around here, but to me it’s always seemed like Proton and Mozilla should be more coordinated. Feel like they could do a lot of interesting things together
Thankfully the New York Times lost their attempt to force OpenAI to continue preserving all logs on an ongoing basis, but they still need to keep some of the records they retained before September.
Being able to search browser history with natural language is the feature I am most excited for. I can't count the number of times I've spent >10 minutes looking for a link from 5 months ago that I can describe the content of but can't remember the title.
In my experience, as long as the site is public, just describing what I want to ChatGPT 5 (thinking) usually does the trick, without having to give it access to my own browsing history.
Google is an established business, OpenAI is desperately burning money trying to come up with a business plan. Exports controls and compliance probably isn't going to be today's problem for them, ever.
They don't, the Gemini crap is dead in the water and only people who care about it are hackernews people or some weirdos. For normies ChatGPT equals AI and that's that, they already won by the brand alone.
When normies hear Gemini, they cringe and get that icky feeling.
It didn't help that when Gemini came out it was giving you black founding fathers and Asian nazis.
My dad uses Gemini because it's the default thingy on his android phone - I asked him if he used ChatGPT and he said yes and navigated to Gemini. Most people really don't care that much I think.
At some point, Europe will learn that if they keep preventing international solutions without creating a climate in which similar or better local solutions can emerge, they are cutting their own nose to spite the face. There are secondary and tertiary effects of this, and eventually the 'huge market' will shrink in importance. I mean, Brazil is a huge market, and no-one cares about them thanks to brain-dead legislation concerning tech imports and economic irrelevance.
No one cares about it because you get robbed on gunpoint at the stoplights.
Again no one in Europe cares about some Gemini because frankly no one even knows what it is. They had their run with the black founding fathers and most people who tried it then dismissed it forever.
Isn’t this what Recall in Windows 11 is trying to solve, and everyone got super up in arms over it?
I have no horse in the race either way, but I do find it funny how HN will swoon over a feature from one company and criticize to no end that same feature from another company just because of who made it.
At least Recall is on-device only, both the database and the processing.
I'm the last person to defend OpenAI on literally anything and personally I hope they crash and burn in a spectacular fashion and take the whole market down with them, but you at least have a choice in using Atlas as it's simply a program that you install on your computer of your own volition. With Recall, there's no choice, M$ will just shove it down your throat whether you want it or not, and most likely (knowing their history it's pretty much a guarantee) you'll be stuck with the privacy nightmare that is Recall with nothing you can do about it.
So the pushback makes perfect sense to me. Also, HN isn't 1 entity, it's many people with many different opinions, you can easily find people who were/are excited about Recall the same way people are excited about Atlas.
I think it makes sense, many don't have a choice to run Windows (Linux/Mac won't work for them for whatever reason). If MS turned on Recall without a disable (and its not hard to believe they wouldn't, onedrive), people would be upset.
With ChatGPT Atlas, you simply uninstall it. done.
Are we talking searching the URLs and titles? Or the full body of the page? The latter would require tracking a fuckton of data, including a whole lot of potentially sensitive data.
All of these LLMs already have the ability to go fetch content themselves, I'd imagine they'd just skim your URLs then do it's own token-efficient fetching. When I use research mode with Claude it crawls over 600 web pages sometimes so imagine they've figured out a way to skim down a lot of the actual content on pages for token context.
I made my own browser extension for that, uses readability and custom extractors to save content, but also summarizes the content before saving. Has a blacklist of sites not to record. Then I made it accessible via MCP as a tool, or I can use it to summarize activity in the last 2 weeks and have it at hand with LLMs.
I find browser history used to be pretty easy to search through and then Google got cute by making it into your "browsing journeys" or something and suddenly I couldn't find anything
There is no balancing happening here. YouTube needs to make an API call to attribute a view to a video, and easylist started blocking that API call. YouTube was perfectly happy a month ago to count views for users that were blocking ads, and presumably remains happy to do so.
The only thing that changed is easylist blocked the API.
Thanks for lifting up my comment. It’s amazing how quickly people want to point fingers at YouTube for something they weren’t involved in.
Someone even relied to your comment implicitly assuming that YouTube cares about conditioning views on whether a user has an adblocker enabled when what happened is easylist added the view counter API to their privacy list.
> point fingers at YouTube for something they weren’t involved in
YouTube monetizes based on view count. They also send the data to the client. That client data is in anyway involved, and could be blocked, is YouTube’s design problem.
The ability to block any network request I want is an essential feature of the general computer and I will promptly abandon any service which tries to impinge upon my security as well as my freedom to use what I own in the way I wish, to obstruct that. Now sure, they could perform some kind of tracking that doesn't generate additional network requests. But they know how the open Web works and the tradeoffs even if they may not like it, so I would guess their architecture is deliberate.
They could just embed tracking code to the streaming service? As in: count how many times the chunk of video was sent to the clients, rather than relying on the clients to work as THEY intended...
This would make replays or scrubbing count as additional views. To fix that, they would need some kind of set to uniquely store all clients, and that‘s questionable from a security and moral point of view, even for YouTube.
If YouTube stored the entire video in a cache people would yell and scream about that. Oh, I’ve got 2TB of YouTube cache that didn’t get cleaned properly, how annoying.
it once again lands in browser cache. I remember a moment when it returned no-cache.
We are back to situation where:
- google doesnt get any info if user with adblocker keeps rewinding in that ~3hour window
- player refetches if you pause for few hours and come back, or decide to rewind 3 hour video to watch again
- your SSD is hammered with gigabytes of useless browser cache writes - might be good idea for Extension overwriting those headers to no-store/max-age=0
I would be surprised if browsers actually cashed the entirety of videos, even if the cash policy allows for it. That does seem like a way to thrash SSD.
What? Replays already do count as additional views. Load a video one day, then load it again the next day. That's two views. There isn't a way to avoid this non-problem.
and YT 'multiple times throughout a video playback' client side endpoint has been tracking this for years reporting every single minute of video you watched, thats what is powering Most Replayed Feature (scroll bar graph showing popular moments in every video)
Not for the cheater. You’d still buy 1m views on some shady site, armies of bots on hacked devices/routers would still pull down the steams at no cost to the bad guys.
A number of YouTubers have made the claim that their views were affected but not revenue, so it seems like the monetization is based on ad-watching views at least.
The entire way this issue was figured out was because it only affected desktop views that weren't monetized to begin with, which the guy in the linked video guessed meant adblockers.
If the monetization weren't limited to ad-watching views, we'd probably still be trying to figure out what happened.
Presumably, it would affect that, and also long-term channel growth. Which would be dastardly if it were intentional, because it would basically cull the platform of channels who voice support for ad blocking.
I wonder if CTR was affected. Could one of the affected channels could have detected that not adding up? I guess it was probably already blocked for privacy. Maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas.
Interestingly, anybody can now measure what percentage of any channel's viewers run ad blockers, by using publicly available data on how much their views dropped during this period.
Just to be clear, YouTube doesn’t pay users based on view count, it revenue shares based on money generated by ads and subscriptions. Using an ad blocker without premium has always meant the creator doesn’t get paid for the views, because that traffic generates no revenue for them to share
No, but the algorithm puts their content in front of people in part based on how many views it has gotten. Or does whatever the heck the shadowy black box wants it to.
Yes but with the intent that they generate revenue, if ad blocked users had distinct behavior different from ad watching users it was mostly ignored while I was there
For better or worse a gigantic portion of people who make their livelihoods on the internet are fully dependent on closed source platforms. Do you think people who sell things on Shopify or Etsy are any more able to scrutinize the systems they depend on to make a living?
So what's your suggestion for how YouTube could be doing better here?
Especially in the scenario that (as the top level comment in this thread suggests) YouTube didn't actually make any changes and the reason the views dropped is because EasyList added an entry to their privacy filter. Should YouTube have recognized that they're in a quasi-monopoly position as you suggest, done the research to identify EasyList as the culprit behind the view metric drop, and then released a change to their client to add a new endpoint which isn't blocked by EasyList?
We don't know that the EasyList theory is what's really going on here, but if you're going to tar YouTube/Google over this ordeal, then I think you have some responsibility for suggesting how they could have done better.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make, but I am honestly surprised if they monetize based on view count and not based on advertisement view and click counts.
> Revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, the majority of the revenue will go to our partners.
Worse than that, YouTube relies on client data for view counting while also actively creating an incentive for ad blockers to disrupt client data because of their anti-ad blocker measures.
This reminds me that I think it was the Invidious project that had a disclaimer saying they could not prevent YouTube from counting your view. Well, I guess they probably could after all, and probably did, depending on which method was used to fetch the video.
it's not the same thing. it looks the same to you, because you don't give a shit, but it's not the same.
I want ad-free viewing on any youtube client in my house, and I do not want to maintain infrastructure to allow that. The terms of the service indicate that I should pay if I want an ad-free experience, so that's what I do.
Some unknown portion of my subscription fee goes towards the monetization of videos that I watch, which I definitely want to happen. Ad blockers don't pay people in lieu of ads, and youtube premium does.
> I want ad-free viewing on any youtube client in my house, and I do not want to maintain infrastructure to allow that.
Firefox + Adblock/uBlock works on mobile, and desktop. If your TV blocks firefox, buy a dongle or mini-pc and use that. And way better for your privacy anyway. And a mini-pc gives you tons more capabilities like emulators etc. You literally buy those intel n100 mini-pcs for like 100 bucks.
If my 70+ years old parents can do that without my help, ... So no, need to maintain a "infrastructure" to blocks ads...
> Some unknown portion of my subscription fee goes towards the monetization of videos that I watch,
> Some unknown portion of my subscription fee goes towards the monetization of videos that I watch, which I definitely want to happen. Ad blockers don't pay people in lieu of ads, and youtube premium does.
You do realize that what Youtube pays out these days is so small amount, that most creators resorted to sponsoring. This is way more profitable for the youtubers involved. The add revenue is more like icing on a cake, not a main source of income.
And ironically, Youtube is one of the best paying platforms for creators. That is saying a lot.
If i remember correctly, for many its barely 1/5 of their actual income. There is a reason why you see those constant creator advertisement for whatever VPS service etc... and merch sales, ... that is where the money is.
Not taking in account the algorithm and its non promoting videos even if your subscribed, the constant DMCA issues where creators lose tons of money on false claims, ...
> it's not the same thing. it looks the same to you, because you don't give a shit, but it's not the same
I give a shit, I just give more of a shit about my personal privacy and my data not being shared with hundreds of anonymous third parties through the advertising auction mechanism than I do about a creator being paid.
Give me ads without RTB and I’ll very seriously reconsider my adblock usage.
Please tell me how analytics information about what videos you watch is an invasion of your privacy. Google already has the info, they serve it and their servers have logs which get analyzed.
it is impossible to download something from the web without a log line entry being generated, so what privacy are you losing? Please tell me.
The RTB auction mechanism fires off personal identifiers as part of the auction mechanism to hundreds of third parties. This is problematic to me because my browsing history is being profiled by random companies I’ve never heard of or consented to process my personal data.
Because google links that information to what you do in other places of the internet. I don't care if my church knows my favourite hymn or my sex store knows I buy sex toys, I care if my church knows I buy sex toys.
yes? It's called pay-per-view. Many creators will insert a segment in the video with a sponsor who will pay them based on their reach. These are typically not blocked, since they're inserted into the video before uploading. YouTube inserts random ads on top of that for every view (which can be blocked).
Though that’s a bit of a dick move to use that. I don’t have a problem with the author making money, I just don’t like the tracking and the politics of youtube. Also those ads are skippable, where yt ones aren’t.
In a way agree with that, and I don't use sponsorblock because of that, but there's another side too: sponsored segments are a dick move too. Well, probably not all of them, but certainly a lot of them. YouTubers proudly proclaiming they use the sponsored product and they are oh so happy with it is lying, most of the time, plain and simple. And the products that are advertised on YouTube are very often on the shady side of things too.
When I see an embedded ad I will immediately know from the type of product if I should ignore it or intentionally avoid that product because most embedded ads come from the worst of the worst companies. Why would they want me watching their ad if it makes me NOT want to buy their product?
Indeed. But they typically are contingent on a certain number of views. If adblockers cause that stat to go down, then you get the opposite of what you are aiming to achieve: the user will see the "message from our sponsor" but their view does bot contribute to providing that sponsor with the data that the youtuber held up their end of the deal. Ends up bring an unpaid ad.
Views might be important to get the attention of a potential advertising partner, but once the relationship has started then keeping it going will likely be dependent on much more relevant metrics for the advertiser. And those metrics will usually be tracked on their end, rather than via YouTube. I'm referring to metrics like click-through rate, propensity to order, revenue on advertising spend, etc. Personalized referral URLs and discount codes are what allow the advertisers to connect their tracking and reporting to the originating YouTuber.
yeah, FWIU they are an increasingly popular monetization channel in addition to YT's built-in ad-rev system (which is famously very bad for creators)
*) and conveniently for YT that out-of-band monetization channel - which they don't profit from - is the exact thing that's negatively affected by an overall drop in view counts
That's not pointing fingers but an objective fact. Technical audiences are more likely to use adblockers than the general population. If your channel caters to them you will be disproportionately affected.
This makes sense in principle, but is not really what this is primarily about. Or at least I'm not aware of such excessive disparities, and haven't heard this being the primary angle.
Consider Charlie (penguinz0 / MoistCritikal). Hardly a techtuber. Despite this, he has seen a drop in computer-originating views to the tune of 1.4M (avg, eyeballed) -> 800K (avg, eyeballed): https://youtu.be/8FUJwXeuCGc?t=290
Lots of people use adblockers, sure, even those not terminally online and tech enthusiast. But to have nearly half the (computer-originating) views evaporate? https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users
Even from that perspective though, what would be the dominant effect then is the share of computer-originating views compared to other origins, rather than a disparity in adblock use habits for the given audience.
While I can't speak to anyone else, back when I did tech support as a job for the elderly, one of our policies was to always install uBlock Origin. Our docs even had warnings to remove ABP and similar stuff because they let ads through.
Speaking from a purely personal experience (both before and after that job), the moment you ask me to regularly fix a device for you, I'm going to install uBlock Origin on every major browser you have and finetune it for privacy (aka enable the anti-tracking lists - these days I'd probably also install consent-o-matic to get rid of cookie banners without agreeing to sell all personal data). 99% of the bizarre computer problems people run into is because they clicked on a malicious internet ad and now a ton of PUPs are installed, are probably mining out their personal information or are trying to sell their users on junk subscriptions (this not so entertainingly includes virus scanners, which are almost all perversions of their original selves).
An adblocker is just basic hygiene and allows for the discussion to be on that remaining 1%, which usually is more on boring corporate fuckery from either Apple or Microsoft or the remainder which are the real technical problems people have.
AdBlock is basic hygiene, and I imagine most people have one installed on their desktop these days if they're either barely technically literate or have a family member who is.
Tech adjacent has similar levels of ad blocking as tech. If it's mostly people who internet a lot on a PC in your audience, expect a lot of ad blocking.
Back in the day a gaming forum I was part of revealed that 85% of users were ad-blocking. The forum had a few banner ads.
Objective fact and "more likely" do not match well. While what you're saying in general is true, it is worth also saying that "tech" channels expecting their subscribers to not use ad-blockers is a pretty wild expectations. What they need to do to have financial income is to secure some relevant sponsorship as part of their content. Most people are completely fine with that and many tech channel are doing it right, at least those that I care for. Having to rely on Alphabet's injected Ads is a very poor taste which if they insist of keeping, they should not be producing content at all.
> Objective fact and "more likely" do not match well.
Huh? If I take a die and paint a 6 on the sides which previously had 4 and 5 then it is an objective fact that you will be more likely to roll a 6 than a 1 with that die.
At this point the "peanut gallery" of the web is essentially just a firehose of misinformation, best avoided. Not two minutes before this I read some comment confidently stating that the last time Apple offered iPhone leather cases was for iPhone 11.
I don't think there was ever a time when critical thinking and fact checking wasn't needed. Nobody has the time to do deep dives into everything, but the more important something is to you, or the more likely it is to impact your life the more it's worth investing the time it takes to do a couple web searches.
Today CNN says that Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro has skin cancer. Is that true? Damned if I know. Will I spend the time trying to verify that? Nope.
I think the idea that newspapers and TV were ever honest is an illusion. I remember my parents and grandparents ranting about the lies published by major newspapers in the 80s and 90s either on topics or people they knew. We tend to forget the bad things in distant past, particularly a past we haven’t lived through. I don’t think news sources are worse today. They were always bad.
The speed and spread of nonsense is accelerating. Within a day the story about youtube view counts spread with hundreds of angry comments about youtube and enshitification.
People are getting ragebaited repeatedly on a scale that is new. Not that misinformation in general is new
I’m not sure about that is there’s something that could’ve happened in the 60s that is so oddly technical, yet understood by millions of people? that it could be misinterpreted and spread like this: add block users mistaken as bots? It would just sound like gobbledygook to someone in the 1960s.
If Dirty Stan spends an hour making guests uncomfortable at your house, some of those guests might come to think of you as a bad host even though Stan's behavior was the issue.
I think it's reasonable to attribute moral responsibility to the entity that owns and has the most control over the platform, even if the technical details aren't quite so simple. Doubly so in this case since YouTube is a profitable business. Given [0], it sounds like this bug with view counts is a direct result of YouTube choosing to start an arms race against users who run ad blockers.
According to the GitHub issue, YouTube didn’t change anything. There are two endpoints that can be used to attribute a view. One is called multiple times throughout a video playback and has been in the easylist privacy filter for years. The other is called at the start of a playback, and was just added to the list (the timing lines up with the reports of view drops from tech YouTubers).
This is not definitive proof that easylist caused the view drops, but it’s I’ve read the issue and a writeup by a YouTube creator and it seems pretty likely.
That's not quite what the github issue says? There appear to be several potentially contributing changes in the time window, and one of them actually re-enables a previously blocked YouTube analytics endpoint
Already live. gpt-5.2-pro scores a new high of 54.2% with a cost/task of $15.72. The previous best was Gemini 3 Pro (54% with a cost/task of $30.57).
The best bang-for-your-buck is the new xhigh on gpt-5.2, which is 52.9% for $1.90, a big improvement on the previous best in this category which was Opus 4.5 (37.6% for $2.40).
https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
reply