I don’t think that’s true. If YouTube were ever freed up, it would likely survive. YouTube actually generates a significant profit for its parent company so even if it did have to pay for resources, it would be okay. TikTok would also survive if sold in the US and held independently. As would most of the major social medias which are essentially stand alone companies.

That’s also borne out by companies like Nebula existing as well as Patreon. The problem with serving videos is live video specifically which takes a lot more infrastructure than normal VOD. That at the moment is not profitable for anyone as far as I know.

It depends what you mean. If you’re saying any live streaming service like Twitch, yes I agree. If you’re just saying video streaming services in general I’d disagree.

Im not sure why people are disagreeing or downvoting me while also making my point. I said they’re lucky to be alive and I highlighted why. They cannot survive without Amazon or AWS. That was the whole point. Yes they serve some alternate purpose to Amazon surely, but again that’s also a threat.

If for whatever reason they stop serving that purpose (whatever it is) or someone high up stops seeing their value, they’re done for as a business altogether. Because they can’t justify themselves internally much at all and their financials are probably awful. That was my point. And if Amazon decides they’re done with them for whatever reason, they cannot survive without AWS being so cheap for them. Not sure how that point got lost in the sauce.

Seems I’m being misinterpreted badly. I’m saying that Amazon has no monetary interest in Twitch. So yes they’re dependent on an Amazon vision to be able to have that internal access to AWS.

The problem with that is if somehow that vision doesn’t pan out or Twitch steps in the way of it. That was my reason for remarking they’re lucky to be alive. They’re lucky Amazon thinks they have value because the moment they don’t think it, they’re dead without internal AWS support.

I do know that, Amazon could kick them off at any time. Just because Amazon owns the service does not mean that they view it as valuable to use their AWS resources on it. Normally it makes sense to lower costs to do so but if the service isn’t seen as valuable or missteps their admin actions, they could easily end up on the side of the road.

They also exist in this weird space currently where their existence is justified by getting Prime subscriptions up (Prime members get perks on the platform). Now I don’t have their numbers but streaming is ungodly expensive even for Amazon. So I doubt twitch is rolling in a huge pile of cash for them and I doubt they have the Prime numbers to back it up.

Leading to my conclusion that Amazon could say “sink or swim” and kick them off AWS or just sell the company outright since another company would just use AWS anyway and they might make more money that route in fees.

Let me be the first to say that it is amazing that Twitch is even still alive and honestly if they got kicked off of Amazon Web Services, they’d be done for.

Their moderation is historically the worst of almost any platform I’ve ever seen. It seems like every six months or so I hear about something heinous that their moderation teams have done.

Off the top of my head I remember the hot tub controversy, the female nipple thing, the tasteful or artistic nudity thing, the extremely inconsistent ban times for large vs small creators, the awful VOD mute controversies, the VOD deleting, forced ads being mishandled, covering for Dr Disrespect, and general sexism that isn’t even consistent.

Twitch is a dumpster fire on their mod team. All the dang time. One week someone will accidentally show porn on stream and get a 3 day ban, the next week my favorite streamer will show a glimpse of a bare ass from a mod in a game for 0.5 seconds and receive the same 3 day ban. That actually happened. How is it that you have soft core porn on your website and yet you’re banning people for showing too much cheek for a handful of frames?

You say that but Arcane didn’t deserve this fate. I’d be rooting for a Bethesda game to fail but BioWare and Arcane? That’s just sad. They were both amazing studios ruined by BS. And the AAA space is large enough these days that actual big budget games can indeed innovate.

Like say though, I won’t exactly shed a tear for failing studios like Ubisoft or Bethesda that have been churning out the same crap for awhile now.

Also not every game needs to innovate and it’s not like you lose a lot by having average selling games come out. But even in games packed with AAA bangers, indies still sell incredibly well. It isn’t a zero sum game.

I’d argue yes. What people care about more is minimum steep time and minimum leaves by weight per mL water. You can use the brew ratio for this to actually define your tea to a standard like black tea. Though you’d have to define brew ratio which I trust the British to do.

After you define those things though, you’d probably measure the amount of liquid and kind of ignore the weight of the tea and steep time, so long as they go over the minimum per serving. Unless you want to argue that adding more leaves/steep time means that you’re consuming more tea, which seems wrong.

Your criticisms of the tech are good. I agree with them which is why I said current alternatives are already taking off because you’re right, plant based proteins are doing well.

That being said, there are downsides to plant based alternatives depending on what your design constraints are. Notably some difficulties farming specific plants, crop rotations still need to happen, etc. Also the land consumption is still a concern. And despite criticisms it’s not like lab grown meat has gone nowhere, even recently.

However I’d agree that both this vertical farming technique and lab grown meat are long future technologies and I expect neither to mature fully in the next decade or two maybe. So in that case, we can cut down on meat consumption. Make meat only for special occasions or something. Then we cut down on the land area of meat.

I deal with this situation the same as with our power needs. Implement the things best available to us now and stop waiting for future tech. But as far as future tech goes, vertical farming has a ton of challenges and lab grown meat has more potential in my mind. Especially since lab meat is already being sold and consumed whereas vertical farming seems to exist still in the conceptual phase. Just my two cents though.

Sounds more to me like anon isn’t romantically attracted to men but is sexually. Which is very confusing if you don’t have words for it but that simple language/label would solve anons problems

A femboy isn’t a woman

I don’t necessarily view the limiting factor as being the ultimate nutrient density per unit UV light.

Some compounding factors if you’d like to think about this more: UV light is not a monolith and so if you’re using artificial light you may be able to select for plants that still have high calorie yields but can accept a lower wavelength of UV that would lower power costs.

The same goes for water costs and just the general suitability for these vertical towers as well as what fertilizers work best for them.

The amount of optimization is one of the reasons I’m not hopeful for this type of project. There’s a ton of variables, you’re essentially making an entirely new form of farming and it’s a harder version of it. Meaning that it won’t experience the explosion of industry around it probably.

In the eventual future, sure. But that may be a century away. There are many other solutions that should be implemented before vertical farming that would actually protect ecosystems. The main thing would be pesticides. That’s what I’m far more concerned about than this mere concept.

They’re great thoughts though I’d like to point out that most human made structures do no make use of the sun and so their complaint about having solar panels take up the same space is somewhat dubious.

The other comment I’d make is that they chose to highlight an experiment utilizing wheat. Mostly because we use a lot of it. However, humans could modify their diets to consume less wheat if we wanted to. There is nothing mandatory about consuming wheat and so we could focus on plants that need less light to grow.

I’d also like to note that the vertical farming stuff has very little innovation going on in the space because there is no demand for it at all currently. If there were demand, you may see alternative technologies taken up.

Alternative technologies like using mirrors to harvest the UV light and transport it without electrical costs and losses in reproducing it. Or mutating the plants in some ways. Or making better use of UV light by only targeting the leaves or such. Plenty could be done to innovate.

That all being said, I think vertical farming has absolutely no future. Mostly because the alternatives are so good. We could redo an entire farming setup. Or we could cut down on food waste. And cut down on meat consumption. And invest in lab grown meats. Lab grown meats that have a large potential to turn food waste into usable food. All of those are far better tech and this is a dead end concept I’m afraid.

Another “fun” fact about that nerve is that many abdominal surgeries will move it around and the healing can make it sensitive. Had that happen to me and when I would move, it would send a very slight shooting pain through my groin and would be amplified in the genitalia region to become actual pain.

I personally found this somewhat charming and hilarious but if it hurt any worse it wouldve been my worst enemy.

Glad we’re on the same page because I found this interesting. I do think it’s getting much better especially with younger people. Even in the places I’ve been in Oklahoma, it’s more tolerant than you think. Still not great but not hellish.

And I appreciate the consideration for my experience, it’s not perfect. One of my parents is largely accepting but not fully supportive and the other is unsupportive and the relationship is tenuous. I do agree it’s getting better and somewhat quickly, but I’ve had to deal with a lot more crap coming out than what I expected to. It’s opened my eyes to what other minorities have to deal with, the micro-aggressions are very real. Even just having a parent call my partner my “friend” is a huge offense that they don’t really recognize.

Anyways that may be more than you asked for but it’s really hard to get a picture of the intolerance without directly experiencing it and I didn’t understand that beforehand.

It will largely depend on the area you’re in but if I can also point out that group 1a are the people that become group 2 or are parents to group 2 when exposed to a slight amount of education or meet someone that fits the group but don’t ultimately take the undertones of what they’re saying all that seriously. These people usually view group 3 as oversensitive.

So in fact I think that group 2 is rising which is somewhat a good thing but it’s also dangerous to be too critical of them because we’ve seen it push people back the other way. You get too hard with “word policing” and people will rebel against it and that’s much worse imo. Police language too much and you reconvert some portion of group 2 not back into 1a but into the more dangerous 1b.

I’m not saying we accept the language when it hurts people but we shouldn’t be going after people insanely hard for mostly harmless jokes.

Ah I think I see my issue with what you’re saying. I don’t think group 1 is homogeneous. I agree on the rest of that but you have to consider a sub group of group 1, let’s call it 1a, fit the description of “use those words hatefully but will not be easily educated and do not seek out hateful groups to form collectives”.

Whereas group 1b would be the actual people going to rallies and forming hate groups. And so I think that your statement is correct for group 1b but I actually think they’re in the far minority of this group. Their hateful messages may resonate with group 1a but they do not have easy communication and I almost view that messaging as in a critical stage of dying in modern culture.

Like obviously the hate groups have gone somewhat underground. Our politicians may give subtle nods to them or may invent stuff like the phrase “DEI” as a substitute, but that messaging is still lost on the average Joe that has racist sentiments.

If you were to somehow remove the words that group 1a uses and give them no power, they’d still hold their position but not have any way to update their language since it has been pushed to the fringes of society.

I view that group as much larger and more problematic in some ways since they’re more likely to spread a more casual form of hate or distaste than group 1b is. And they’re also more subtle about it.

I wasn’t saying that I’m going to go around personally asking people to refer to me that way, I more meant that I would prefer if that was just an open and accepted thing that allies could joke about slurs with their friends in said community instead of gatekeeping the words or taking exclusive ownership of them. I was expressing that as a personal preference though because I understand that not everyone feels that way.

And I do agree that more education and acceptance is more likely to reduce the use of those words negatively through just proximity to the affected parties. That’s totally fair. I still don’t think it will go away entirely because edgey people online see it as a vector of attacking people.

So the part I disagree with it the “people will just make new slurs” part. The way slurs are created and used kind of relies on large groups of people to use and agree on them. They’re a form of meme. And I’m sure people would attempt to recreate them but your average Joe isn’t going to search that out. Those new slurs would become much more niche I’d imagine.

I think that’s a fair point. I can definitely see that angle because it does seem that when used within the community it can have an almost positive aspect that can be taken away. Interesting way of thinking about it.