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

If you watch Shorts, maybe. If you watch normal videos, the comments are pretty much an afterthought.

But even shorts, assuming they're like reels/stories, the "social" aspect is very minimal compared with, say, Facebook posts back in the day, where your friends would see and comment and reply to each other.

The Algorithm doesn't really want that anymore; it wants to feed you content from arbitrary people to keep you passively engaged, not to foster conversation/active engagement.


Is it? I've heard YouTubers make snide comments about subscribing "as if that has any bearing on whether you see my videos", implying that it has minimal impact on the algo.

Well there's a dedicated subscriptions page which is nice.

On desktop, the homepage also has subscriptions on the side, with an indicator that someone has a new video.


Yeah, I still have to go to it, AND pass the recommended stuff at the top, and maybe shorts too (?), but at least I can see the stuff i want to see.

Many YouTubers claim that some of their subscribers do not get notified when they release new videos (the "hit the bell icon" portion). They've also been claims of users being silently unsubscribed from channels. That is probably what they're referring to in your paraphrased quote.

Because it would be shocking to me if there were Youtubers who truly believed that having (or not having) new subscribers had no impact on the algorithm.


My understanding is that the percentage of viewers that are actually coming from subscriptions has gone down significantly. The recommendations drive everything, and they don't really care if you're subscribed for what videos they offer.

That makes sense -- yeah, that if you go to the Subscribed page, you still see all that content, but the algorithm is de-prioritizing subscribed channels in the recommended feed.


Another Riley Walz project? Awesome! :)

It doesn't help that AI "thought leaders" can't articulate a vision by which our lives will improve rather than be made worse.

It looks like:

1. They take billions in investment

2. They spend trillions

3. They and their investors profit in the quadrillions from all the "labor saving"

4. ???

5. Everyone's needs are met.


It is just obnoxious the gap between thought leaders and everyone else.

I was at a panel last week. The most pro-AI person was an account executive from a big fintech company.

EVERYONE else - a data scientist that works in AI, regulatory compliance, cybersec, and marketing, took the position of "hey this is great and will change things, but let's pump the brakes... a lot."


Random people cure cancer for their dog, every business can vibe code an app to make their operations more efficient, anyone can launch a business with 10% of the effort it used to take.

The AI companies are only capturing like 5% of the value produced with this tech right now.


  > Random people cure cancer for their dog
this not a serious comment


Shocking that people who are in data science/ML are excited about data science/ML, and people in jobs not interested in that area are not interested in it.

It's like a programmer being surprised that a worker in $random_job wants to keep doing their job, and not learn how to be a programmer instead.


Huh. I thought there was going to be something insightful about one ball juggling specifically, but I didn't see it in reading or searching.

I haven't tried just 1 ball, but I find 2 to be a lot harder than 3. (which, I suppose, is why I was expecting something insightful about why it would be difficult to juggle just one ball).


I install a new app maybe once every 6 months. I agree that the app store is trash, littered with ads and casino games for kids.

I just don't find it hard to find the app I want, when I want something specific, and install, and then _get the hell out of that shithole_.


wait, are those the only ingredients?

I wonder if we'd have the same reaction if cola had never been darkened. We wouldn't, right?

Office in the Mac is AWFUL about this.

By default, it saves to a OneDrive you never asked for and can never find. You can't permanently change the location of your saved documents-- just change it once, and the setting stays "forever", maybe, until a software update fucks it up for you again.

Auto-save is disabled if you're not using OneDrive.

Nobody asked for OneDrive. It makes it a goddamned nightmare to find your files. I was trying to make it easy for my partner to save their files to the same location every time, make it easy to find in the Finder, make it easy for mailing attachments. No such luck.


> Office in the Mac is AWFUL about this.

> By default, it saves to a OneDrive you never asked for and can never find. You can't permanently change the location of your saved documents-- just change it once, and the setting stays "forever", maybe, until a software update fucks it up for you again.

I don't remember ever encountering this problem, and I just checked that I am definitely logged into my Microsoft account for whatever reason.


I'm guessing you picked a location you wanted (outside of OneDrive) and the location has stayed, as I mentioned? I don't trust that it won't be reverted some day, but it hasn't in the past few weeks.

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

Search: