Thanks for the checking. I think the whole argument is pretty wild and specious, and factually suspect, that someone died because a person couldn’t look up the cpr video on time. YouTube is not a platform that is meant to deliver on demand life saving training. In NYC all the restaurants and workplaces have signs up in designated areas with instructions on how to do cpr. I suspect someone is going to more quickly look up written instructions or infographics if they need to Google. But really, this just speaks to the importance in staying up to date on CPR practices and having school and HR classes that teach this on a recurring basis. Using this as an argument against all ads is kind of nuts.

Also, the first step of most CPR instructions is call 911. So if you follow instructions, how are you watching a video on the phone? And can’t the operator coach you through the steps? https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/cpr/performing-cpr/cpr-steps

I can’t tell what is more gaudy. Keeping the video the same size and overlaying an image with a transparent background, or shrinking everything with some obtrusive weird colored border to make it look like a 90’s web page. But at the end of the day, I think it’s relatively non intrusive, especially if dismissible while keeping the video paused.

Looks like the reddit embeds were newly added to the page, or weren’t loading correctly last night. Couldn’t tell those links were previews or final designs of what the ad format would look like. Disney pause ads for example have it overlayed on top of the video instead of shrinking the video to have a banner/border around it. https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/pause-ads-hulu-max-peacock-streaming-1235764850/

Proof? Aren’t there classes of videos non monetized on youtube? When I just google search for cpr and find the american red cross I quickly found written instructions as well as a youtube video that doesn’t appear to have any ads. Isn’t the problem that some video creators intentionally create videos for CPR in hopes of monetizing?

YouTube wants you to keep watching the videos. The more time you spend on the site the more ads you see. They care about finding the balance of acceptable ad load to maximize ad space, which requires a consistent user base. I have faith that this is their objective. Also, videos take time to load and a user hitting pause is unpredictable. A light weight display ad is probably the best technically feasible way to grab a user’s attention in that brief moment of hitting pause. Especially when pause means a user wants to mute audio to do things like take a phone call, a video would turn off users to the platform.

It’s the opposite. If you pause the video you the viewers are almost always looking at the screen. The pause button on a mobile phone or web browser is literally on the player. You are guaranteed to see it immediately after you push the button. You will see it when you un pause. These ads are display banners not video. It only takes a second to see the ad.

Unlike video ads that just auto play, especially when the video player auto plays more videos, there probably is more probability you aren’t actually watching, unlike pause ads that require user activity and focus on the screen to push the pause button.

Look at the article linked to it. It has a render of a pause ad being a banner that shrinks the video player somewhat, but the paused video is viewable.

I doubt they are video ads. On other streaming services they are just static images with transparent backgrounds displayed on one third of the screen or borders that show up around the paused video. Pause ads aren’t new and I’m guessing YouTube is following other streaming services.

My first thought was “I havent seen that in. A sporting context since WCW NWO Wolf Pack was a thing.” But fuck this guy.

Yeah, that was disappointing. But I do think it was a tough situation. Sanders wasn’t a Dem, he was an independent. I think Warren as an established D could have had more pull and commanded more from the establishment side. Unfortunately she picked party over platform.

Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.

What do you mean by “the point”? Anything that doesnt fit the preferred narrative is just not the point or arbitrary?

The star wars analogy is what I responded to. What was the point of that.

I’m not making a both sides argument about history. I’m making a both sides observations about personal experience and belief. Individuals on both side have experienced things that compel them to feel justified in war at a personal psychological and biographical level. Collectively, at a sociological level too. Explanation/description and justification are not the same thing, and I am merely trying to explain that no side thinks they are the bad guys, and both sides think they have justification. If you want to explain “why” israel goes to war it’s not useful to describe them as a maniacal bond villain or one dimensional like a Marvel Villain.

I think the conflation of justification vs understanding, description, explanation, is preventing us from having meaningul discourse. When Hannah Arendt wrote “The Origins of Totalitarianism” it wasn’t a justification for the the holocaust. It was a description of the rationality that lead to the holocaust. Just because you can attempt to understand evil doesn’t mean you are promoting or justifying it. Today, merely suggesting that Israeli’s suffered and had had experienced a sense of duty to rescue hostages is somehow interpreted as an argument for genocide and will somehow cause someone to be accused of being a zionist or some other inflammatory rhetorical pejorative.

Both sides think they’re the good guys with something to avenge. And both sides probably do have that.

Ironically doesn’t this star wars analogy work the other way. Israel citizens are attacked. A small relatively small amount of civilians die. Then Israel goes commits genocide.

Obviously. I’m Lemmy and against that. But there are dominant pov’s on Lemmy that saturate threads and are reflected in up votes and down votes

I agree with all these things. But I dont understand the hail corporate mentality of being upset or knee jerk defending steam. I’m curious to see where the suit goes and evaluate if I should consider joining a class action suit as I learn more.

How is Lemmy so anti corporate, but bends over backwards to defend steam as an immaculate corporation. I love steam, and 90% of my game purchases or from their store. 5% are from stores that let me redeem steam keys.

I think their market position should have some scrutiny.

But you could say it pushed the limits. It required the Ram Expansion Pak. I think only 3 or 4 N64 games required that. It was packed with weird game modes like counter op. The far sight gun as a weird experiment to see through walls. It really pushed the limits and tried to do a lot. TimeSplitters was a great spiritual successor to the Goldeneye/Perfect Dark series that continued the tradition.

I got more of a Mirrors Edge vibe than Perfect Dark watching that trailer.