I have a YouTube channel [1], which is only just above the new criteria - in the last year, 4300 hours of views, and 1100 subscribers.
I produce videos on using Cubase, and teaching it IRL was my main source of income until September last year (I got made redundant from 2 schools I worked at). The channel is a useful ad for the book I have written on the subject of Cubase and Music Technology [2], and has got me some sales - I don't have exact figures, but I've had a few people say they saw the channel, then the book ads, and then bought the book. The book sales in total are nothing remarkable (a year of sales is about a month's earnings from the jobs I no longer have), but better than nothing, and mean it's actually worthwhile putting the considerable amount of time needed into the book to update it each year when a new version of Cubase comes out.
The YT channel made $135 in the last year. Nothing to write home over, but it means that once a year I can buy a plugin that I wouldn't have done otherwise. A niche channel such as mine isn't ever going to earn real money, but it's a nice side bonus to get some spending money once a year from it - I put the videos up because they are a bit of an advert for my skills, and because I've got a lot of positive comments from people who have found the videos helpful. But I would feel somewhat aggrieved if I wasn't making this small amount of money, and felt that I was being profited from for making content for free. I know about the hosting costs, etc., but I'm sure YT makes money overall.
However, I had another video on my personal channel which had a MAME cabinet I made using a Raspberry Pi - back in the day when this wasn't that common. It made it onto the official Pi blog [3] - along with a write-up that I did for it, and currently has 180,000 views. I wouldn't have seen a penny from that if the new rules were in place, and that the new rules will stop the 'one hit wonders' who create something that goes truly viral (Charlie/Finger, etc) from earning anything is a little concerning to me - I'm sure YouTube will still place adverts on them (?), but if you're a one-off, then you get nothing. Won't this just lead to people sending potentially viral videos to a channel who specialise in redistribution who will take a cut of the revenue?
Bitcoin and blockchain systems are nearly all designed to exploit new users and extract capital from greater fools who are too late to the game and didn't read or understand the rules and fine print.
Satoshi's Bitcoin and many of the crypto-currencies that have followed create and distribute the supply that effectively creates a decentralized pyramid-ponzi scheme. Semantically, a more accurate term is needed;
Imagine an economic policy that uses a "limited" amount of pie as "currency". Bitcoin gave half of this pie away to the first few users who arrived in exchange for the least amount of work/effort possible. Any user arriving later will need to waste more hashing power (computational work) in exchange for a smaller sum of newly generation coins for a successfully mined block reward. or the user might be convinced to purchase a previously produced coin from one of the early adopters. Buying a Bitcoin is worse than zero-sum, as money from buyers is exchanged for previously generated coins, the network must increasingly waste computations and energy.
Satoshi's economic model creates a system where participation is only beneficial if you can exploit the ignorance of another new user who enters the network after you. Bitcoin effectively relies on psychological manipulation though deceptive marketing claims like
"Bitcoin is deflationary"
"Bitcoin is rare"
"Bitcoin is a store of value"
When what actually happens is you either need to enrich someone who generated the coin for far less than you're paying, or waste more electricity and computational work than other early users for significantly less share of the pie.
If you understand the computer science behind Bitcoin, you'll realize how ridiculous the false equivalency to gold is.
1. The claim of "rare" doesn't exactly hold true.
Consider the 10,000 BTC pizza - how did this happen? This was the direct result of Satoshi's economic policy, granting vast sums of BTC to mint out very quickly very early for a short duration to the very small pool of people who ran the software. Satoshi's algorithm produced BTC in plentiful quantities enabling the 10,000BTC pizza - thus it wasn't rare if you were Satoshi and the dozen other early whales hording as much as possible, until the algorithm begins cutting off the production and limiting later users from producing coins, starving the economy. Now there's a psychological game being played, where public relations and marketing must convince new users to buy in. Because the exchanges are unregulated, they can manipulate the spot price though wash trading and painting the tape [2] (where trades are falsified and you just sell the same item back and forth to your friend for a higher and higher price).
The supply was created by running a piece of software. It's not magic. Most of the supply was produced very early on and as much as 30% of all Bitcoins are owned by less than 100 people.
Best estimates are that there are about one million
holders of Bitcoin; 47 individuals hold about 30 percent,
another 900 hold a further 20 percent, the next 10,000
about 25% and another million about 20%, with 5% being
lost. So 1/10th of one percent represent about half the
holdings of Bitcoin and 1 percent close to 80 percent
(http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-
of-the-bitcoins-2013-12). The concentration of Litecoin
ownership is similar
(http://litecoin-rich-list.blogspot.com).
Most of the big wallets have been in place from early on,
so sitting back and watching your capital grow has been a
very successful strategy.
The distribution of Bitcoin holdings looks much like the
distribution of wealth in North Korea and makes the
China’s and even the US’ wealth distribution look like
that of a workers’ paradise
3. Bitcoin network requires ASIC miners, largely centralized in China [3]. Assuming the inveitable surpassing of a more advanced cryptosytem making Bitcoin obsolete, as the market is informed there will be a decline in BTC's spot price and once this falls below the cost of OPEX for miners, the hardware goes offline and the network will cease to function. Maximalists will attempt to offer an emergency fork, in any attempt to save their "investment", just as they have developed the lightening network to create centeralized payment hubs, so "investors" can act as liquidity providors and take fees, instead of miners.
4. Electricty usage is unsustainable, GOTO 3
5. [4]
Bitcoin value is make-believe just like money. But even
though there is bitcoin-sphere governance, there are no
bitcoin-sphere assets. Taxes are not paid in bitcoin.
There is no FDIC, only hackers that lift a million here
and there. And when nation-states decide its a nuisance,
what are the guns of bitcoin? It’s anonymity? From the
same government that created PRISM and then used
mind-magic* to make everyone forget about PRISM? Please.
You may think crypto-currencies that require more power
than a small country to run can fly under the radar, but
somehow I think not indefinitely. After all, becoming the
next big thing would mean its a threat to the American
dollar, do you really think the US Gov will shrug and say
“shucks bitcoin went from a ponzi-novelty to something
that will totally usurp this hegemony we worked so hard to
make. Guess we’ll have to call it a day.” (If you think
this, sell your Bitcoin and buy an imagination.)
The day you can pay tax bills to a government in Bitcoin
is probably the day you can rest easy. Until then dear
Bitcoin holders, you do have something of value, just like
the Louisiana territory has value. But in this 1800’s
metaphor, what makes you so sure you’re America?
Monopoly money is good to have, while the game is still
running.
Mostly that very few people use it[1], which causes a kind inverse network effect, if you will. So finding people fluent in Ada is more difficult than finding people fluent in more popular languages.
Also, AFAIK the library situation is not very good. I guess this is not that much of a problem for embedded programming, but for building regular applications (like a web server or a DBMS) it kind of sucks.
[1] Telling this from memory, and I am by no means an expert, so take this with a grain of salt. But I think part of the reason that Ada is not popular is that it acquired a reputation for being large and complicated early in its life. The last time I looked at Ada, it did not seem that complex compared to C++, but I guess the reputation has stuck. Also, for a while (I have no clue how long and right now I am too lazy too look it up) the language was trademarked/copyrighted/whatever by the Pentagon, and if you wanted to call the shiny new compiler you just wrote an Ada compiler, you had to submit it to the Pentagon for certification, which I assume was both expensive and slow. Therefore very few people outside the aerospace / DOD contractor sector used the language to begin with. It's a shame, really. It took me a while getting used to it, but once I got past that, I found it a very nice language (as long as I did not need much in the way of third party libraries).
> No it is not inheritance, and Go doesn't have automated delegation, it has type embedding.
Different names for the same thing.
> func acceptA(a A}{} // you can't pass B here
This says that the function isn't polymorphic in its argument, not that the types aren't polymorphic. Function resolution that is not polymorphic is not limited to Go, but occurs in inheritance-based languages, too. Example in OCaml:
class a = object method foo = 0 end
class b = object inherit a method bar = 1 end
let f (x: a) = ()
let () = f (new b)
You will get an error that the type of `new b` (= `b`) is not compatible with `a`, because they're not identical, even though `b` is a subclass of `a`.
If you replace the declaration of `f` with:
let f (x: #a) = ()
it'll work, because `#a` denotes a polymorphic type, matching `a` or any subclass of `a` (same as though you'd specify an interface in Go [1]). You can also cast the type explicitly to `a` to work around the error.
I knew a guy that ran a Subway sandwich store. He told me that they make their profit margin on the soda.
At AWS, the bandwidth is the soda. They mark it up 18x over market rate. The more successful you are, the more you pay for it.
That's their business model. They trap you into "cheap prices", and then hit you over the head for the rest of your life with bandwidth costs. They know that it's too hard to leave, so you won't do it.
I can get bandwidth on the market for about $0.013-$0.005 cents per gigabyte. Think about that. That's how much more expensive these cloud services are on BW costs.
https://i1.wp.com/investingdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/0...