Yes, makes total sense. Fatherverse sounds fine to me.

Offer a free option for certification to indigenous midwifes?

It’s absolutely overkill for many applications, with its integrated fuse, and that’s why I love it. It is indeed objectively best.

I enjoyed reading that. Helldivers sounds like a fun game, and I’ll be rooting to keep the mines locked forever now, too - no matter how much the children yearn for them.

lspci will read the vendor and device id via PCI and use that to determine what the device is. You might want to make the output a bit more digestable / useful via lspci -s 03:00.0 -k -nn, but I’d assume the ids that match an 2070 will show up.

Could you please take the card out and provide us with a few pictures from different angles, maybe getting a good look at the actual chips?

I’d like to rule that out before chasing rabbits here.

Also, you could always run nvidia-settings, which will show information about an NVIDIA card using a different access method.

I’d still like to see the pictures of the card though ;)

Thanks, I do actually appreciate that comment.

It might have sounded like that at first, but I’m not actually shilling for a company trying to increase ad revenue, and I do hate what current ads have become.

Ads should not manipulate or downright endanger people, and there are also cases where we need to find a different mechanism to deliver ads to people entirely - if a podcast (for me, that means mostly audio dramas) advertises itself as immersive and is not on a platform where I can get an ad-free experience, I simply won’t be able to listen to it. Being immersed into a supernatural, cosmic horror doesn’t go well with hearing about how I should switch my business page to SquareSpace.

I was fine with the “watch these 3 relevant ads in sequence and we leave you alone for the rest of the movie” concept, for example. That to me looks like an indirect form of payment, it’s transparent (no obnoxious product placement) and I can enjoy the rest of whatever media I’m consuming in peace.

You realize I mentioned in several other comments in this thread that I am pretty aware of the financial structures involved in content creation on various platforms? That’s also a fallacy, as thousands or millions are watching a given video and it’s not on me alone to generate the required financial support, so the value my ad impressions generate is proportional to that number.

You realize I mentioned why donations made by individuals, to individuals, are not ideal and not sustainable? How many creators can a single individual support? Let’s say I am interested in 70 creators, should my media consumption cost me $350 a month, or should the cost be divided by all their subscribers and ideally be fairly managed by a platform?

I do care, and I do support content creators with my money directly, thank you. I also happen to have paid subscriptions, although as my other comment mentions, out of necessity, not because I believe that to be an ideal situation (in the case of YouTube, specifically).

YouTube introducing a KoFi - like donation button with minimal UX threshold and minimal processing fees with the benefits going directly to the creator? I fully support that idea.

You are right of course, and I would like to make this point clearer for others in this thread: Nebula can only survive if people pay more than Nebula spends on getting them to subscribe in the first place (think ads etc.) , and if the annual streaming costs are covered (those were a little more than $250.000 / year last I checked).

The tool that works best for getting people to subscribe is direct advertisement by the creators (Click like and subscribe), so Nebula is heavily investing in creator sponsorships, around $5 million a year.

That is the platform supporting the creators via direct sponsorships.

Now that this is out of the way, I’m still not satisfied with the answer. First of all, I wanted to shed light on what, apart from decisions based on moral beliefs and political stance, would be different for you as an end user. Don’t get me wrong, those are perfectly valid reasons and in the end, I do believe every decision comes with a certain amount of politics attached to it, but I think those reasons won’t sway the masses.

Furthermore, YouTube has been doing the same thing for a couple of years now

Let me make it clear: overall, I like Nebula as a platform much better than Google as a company. I do not know enough about Nebula as a company to comment on how they will evolve over time. I’d personally love if all my favorite creators. would switch to a platform where I can support them in a more direct fashion by paying a parent entity vs. each creator individually, and where me and people I care about are never exposed to ads.

Sure. But the number of targets you could acquire there is miniscule compared to simpler delivery mechanisms, via a malicious app download, for example, and you have larger costs (hardware) and added risks, e. g. being captured on CCTV during installation.

That’s why I said, the cost/reward ratio is really off.

I don’t think that was ever a moral issue. We’re talking about large corporations in a capitalist setting, moral is not something to bring up in that discussion.

Also, no one said end users are morally obliged to watch ads. The gist is: some kind of revenue stream must exist so that the operator of the platform keeps it running and the creators are enabled to create content.

A paid subscription is a perfectly valid alternative, as are platforms like Nebula, which use that exact model of paid subscriptions. Patreon is a bit tricky since it only serves the content creator. Google famously shut down all kinds of projects without any consideration for their users, I have no doubt they’d pull the trigger on YouTube if it would serve them.

In a perfect world, ads should not exist at all. It took us decades to even regulate ads that are obviously harmful (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, ads propagating body issues via heavily manipulated images etc.), none of that should be forced down people’s throats. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in a utopia, but in a capitalist hellscape, so when I talk to people, I actually want to know their practical ideas of keeping the show running.

Currently, I couldn’t recommend anyone to not run an adblocker, the internet would become unusable due to how intrusive and downright dangerous ads have become, both in content for certain audiences, and as networks to deliver malware.

Simple answers just longing for the good old days of the small web are nothing more than nostalgia and willfully ignore how the internet and the society using it have changed. That’s not a practical or remotely useful answer.

We are watching the system change as we speak, and I came here to discuss alternatives. I did not ask a moral question, although I do absolutely believe that people creating high quality content should be paid for their time. I genuinely want to know what people’s ideas and beliefs are and how they think the system will continue to work.

I have seen plenty of people who make excellent content and who I’d consider to be decent human beings. I also used to believe that YouTube was a cesspool hosting only crap, and I think it was via some new hobbies that I discovered the decent offerings.

That by the way is why I explicitly mentioned channels and personalities I’d like to exclude from my claim that creators that should receive financial support to be able to keep creating content.

Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.

Now don’t get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they’re doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.

That is - political topics aside - the same as getting a YouTube subscription.

I’d still prefer a platform run by content creators, naturally, so I fully support Nebula.

But if you’re paying for Netflix, why wouldn’t you simply pay for a premium account that doesn’t show you the ads? Is the content from your favorite YouTubers really that bad in comparison? I’ll admit, for me, it’s absolutely the opposite.

The examples you cited are not individuals. Both Pokimane and Ludwig are basically media companies at this point in time.

And yes, the amount of money you get from YouTube is a lot less, although I’m being told major YouTubers have direct platform deals. But that’s not the issue:

In order to even get those lucrative sponsorships, you need the reach of a major platform in order to build an audience - that’s not happening without e. g. YouTube.

How does the hosting provider for the actual content benefit from the Patreon accounts of the creators?

Should you then in turn also not consume content on YouTube at all? If so, great, you’re basically not affected by this discussion at all.

As for the topic itself: YouTube definitely has its share of problems, e. g. ElsaGate, unskippable ads in front of emergency medical advice, automated copyright strikes that are incredibly easy to abuse etc., but all those things are completely off topic.

Creators do get paid a share of the ad impressions. Many also are completely open about it and post videos of how well their videos did and how much money they earned from monetized videos, i. e. videos with ads - this is also why you hear many avoiding e. g. swear words, since YT’s auto detection will then flag their video for de-monetization.

But funny enough, that’s not what I said at all. The cost of running YouTube and the cost of the creators must be paid (plus creating an incentive to produce high quality content in the first place). That can be achieved by ads or by offering a subscription.

My original question still stands: if you were to build a video streaming platform tomorrow, what would your model for financing operation and content creation be?

Sure. But nobody had to invest multiple hours each day into maintaining their Geocities page - there are only so many animated GIFs you could load over a modem connection anyway. Also, are we really comparing the hosting expenses of fucking YouTube with static 90s fan pages?

People expect edited videos from content creators these days. Even someone filming a hobby in their home shop will get barked at for having bad audio quality, if, this week for once, they forgot to charge the batteries on their wireless Rode lavalier mic.

That’s why so many content creators do have e. g. Patreon. Many of them are providing peeks behind the scenes and create transparency to show how much effort a single video takes, and even individuals often hire someone to do the video edits for them.

If you’re fine watching unedited, 5-10 minute videos that can be churned out with next to no effort, all good. I’m really into 40-90 minute long videos and personally view YouTube as an alternative to obtain the content type I prefer, but I’d rather not sacrifice quality. I also prefer creators who provide a serialized format and upload a video every week - in that way, I guess I’m old fashioned.

This type of content is impossible to make without financial support, which I’ll gladly provide one way or the other. However, how much the average person can afford in terms of monthly subscription fees is certainly limited, so a company offering access to multiple creators for a flat subscription fee is absolutely reasonable.

So, how will content creators be reimbursed for the long hours they put into creating YouTube videos? There are honest people out there who made content creation their job. I say that to express I’m not talking about content farms, clickbait creators or “Mr. Beast” types - those are all media companies, although they also have bills to pay.

Did you get a premium account?