Wouldnt this be countered by the opposing country running the same prompt on themselves first and fixing all the flaws? One country having this is a cyber superweapon but every country having it essentially solves cyber security.
The median household income in the US is like 83K, which means half of all households survive with less than that. And most households have two earners.
Even New York City has a median household income of ~80K. Half of all households in NYC survive on that.
If a native speaker didn't pass a C2 exam, it's not because they don't understand the language well enough, it's because they are bad at reading/writing as a skill and might make e.g. spelling mistakes.
Any native speaker will still be far beyond C2 when it comes to intuitively understanding a language and using it. No native speaker will ever fail the oral part of a C2 exam, unless they have to talk about a topic they don't know, which would be a case of a lack of knowledge, not a lack of language proficiency.
The thing that makes this illogical to me is that once you reach basic fluency, you stop needing to study since you will now be automatically improving your language skills every time you hold a conversation, read a newspaper, watch a television program, etc. It's genuinely just the relatively small initial hurdle towards ~B1 that is a slog, but after that, you never have to actively study again if you don't want to.
I would disagree about it not being "easy". Learning a language certainly takes time and effort, but the fact that even the dumbest people in society can speak fluently, that literal toddlers learn languages, shows that it's far from difficult.
It just requires turning your rational mind off, immersing yourself in the language and trusting things will work out, something which more rational/analytic people tend to struggle with. It's telling that children from non-English countries naturally become completely fluent in English by just playing video games and watching YouTube videos, while adults will struggle for years to reach conversational fluency in their second language.
Yeah, B1 is not even nearly fluent, on my B1 exam Spanish I had to roleplay with the examinator going to a store to return something after buying the wrong item. This is like, bare minimum of functioning.
I cannot imagine living in a country for over a year and not taking the effort to lesrn the language.
This is very obvious any time you try to create exhaustive lists of something.
For example, for every country in the world, I would recognize it and say, yeah, thats a country.
But if I had to write all ~200 countries into a list, I would probably miss quite a few.
Or, if you gave me names of all US presidents, I would for each of them go, oh yeah, thats a president. But ask me "name all the presidents", I wouldnt get further than 10.
Its very true for humans as well. For example, if you ask someone to "name 100 historical figures", they will have a very difficult time. But there are of course hundreds of historical figures people woukd recognize. People who manage to do this still tend to fall into sequences so, i.e., naming all the presidents of America or emperors of Rome. But the broader the category, the more difficult it is to come up with examples.
The strongest endorsement for PeerTube is that it cannot sustain creators and thus will only either 1) freeboot off of platforms that do or 2) be flooded by low effort slop?
I think this is the only way for new platforms to ever rise in this space.
A video sharing website is not a social media platform, it's a streaming platform. The real competitors to YouTube are not PeerTube or whatever, it's Netflix and HBO.
This is why Nebula also managed to find a niche and be relatively successful: the issue is not ads or a monthly subscription or something, the only problem is: people want to watch high-quality content. Find a way to get them high-quality content. If you cannot do that, everything else is meaningless. In Nebula's case, even a few high-profile YouTubers in the same niche uploading exclusives on a platform is better than a thousand nobodies uploading low effort content.
The problem with this is that creating the content you watch costs a lot of money and labor.
As a user I would see a grocery store where everything is free as an advantage... utill the products inevitably run out and no food supplier is willing to stock the shelves for free.
Sponsorships are definitely the highest if a youtuber actively engages in them, ad revenue vs patreon depends highly on if you have i.e. a small but highly active fanbase of core fans, versus a wider more general audience that you entertain a bit.
I think people should be more aware of the perverse incentive of YouTubers saying, "my guaranteed source of income is very little and unstable guys, I need you to also subscribe to my patreon" where - could YouTubers perhaps have a reason to act like their ad revenue is very little? In my experience, while ad revenue isn't great, for any decent-size YouTuber its still enough to live on and in any case it always stays a significant income stream.
If YouTube becomes a quarantine for high-quality content, then it will also become a quarantine for viewers.
the fundamental issue a lot of people here don't seem to get is that high quality videos that people want to watch are expensive to create. Besides the huge amount of high-skill labor, there's also just production costs, software, equipment, upkeep, etc.
At the very least, ignoring all other costs, a single person making good videos somewhat regularly is a full-time job. People who make entertainment also need to eat and pay rent, the money has to come from somewhere.
I think the problem is that the "act" of a lot of streamers and content creators is that they are relatable, in the sense that, part of watching a video game streamer is the appeal of, he's just a guy like me playing games in his bedroom. The problem is that this is all an act, or kayfabe as they would call it in wrestling. But it's an act so good that unlike wrestling, which everyone knows is fake, most people that are not at least adjacent to the content industry genuinely have no idea.
Yeah, I think a lot of people on Hackernews fall into the "advertising never worked on me" or "I'm too smart for propaganda" camp.
Clickbait is not just big red arrows and "OMG" in the title. It certainly can be, for some demographics. For other demographics, clickbait can be a video titled "The Theorem That Changed Math Forever" and a blurred out formula in the thumbnail.
If you ever saw a video and just instantly had the urge of, "I have to see this", you successfully got clickbaited. If you dislike constant sound effects and transitions and just want to see someone speak - a lot of adult audiences feel the same way, which is why many big channels deliberately produce content in that way. It's still a similarly skilled editor who probably could make overproduced content if they wanted to - they're just making the choice to make the video more relaxed.