Funny, I went through the article twice looking for the term length. Maybe I missed it because it’s written and I was looking for a digit. Thanks for pointing that out.

This article doesn’t specify, but based on the previous 25% offer, I’m guessing this new and improved proposal is also structured over four years.

New information to me is that the union initially sought a 40% increase. Kind of silly to think that when 90% of your workers decline an offer - any offer - that adding an extra few percent will get you an agreement.

I wrote this before when the union declined the 25% bump, but it bears repeating:

If Boeing were to pay the 40% the union is looking for upon returning to work, and committed to annual salary increases that were double whatever inflation is moving forward, they would have 32,000 employees that would never strike the rest of their careers.

It’s not a surprise to anyone in fuckcars, but to wider audiences it could just be a matter of them never considering it. Our parents had cars, now we have cars, cars are used to go places, even if I get stuck in traffic it’s worthwhile to get to my destination - end of thought.

Sure there’s a huge group of ‘carbrains’ but in my experience, most people don’t have an allegiance one way or the other.

In theory, Sponsorblock could evolve to download a new video multiple times, check what frames match each copy, and use that data to skip to the next matching frame when users watch something.

This would overcome video stream ad injection even if every ad was a different length and in a different location each time someone watched the video.

Well yes, as in step one in a many step process. Most places don’t even consider step one.

Honestly, there aren’t many places that do bike lanes well anyway, and so long as the idea of bike lanes in Ontario is a painted line at the edge of the asphalt, I wouldn’t bother.

Thanks for pointing that out. I’d missed the last line on my first read of it somehow.

Additionally, 1/3 of the revenue from any subscriber is allocated to the creator responsible for bringing in that subscriber.

This reads to me like this is the purpose of going to a creator specific link when initially signing up. For example, if you go to nebula.tv and sign up from their main page, no specific creator gets that 33% cut of your revenue. Alternatively, if you see a YouTube video where a creator talks about their content also being on Nebula, they ask you not to go to the platforms main page, but specifically to nebula.tv/zagorath to sign up. If I went to that link and signed up, you would get 33% of my subscription revenue.

To me, this opens another question of what is this the term of this 33% cut. I doubt it’s a cut of the revenue for so long as my subscription is active. I’d imagine it’s more likely a cut of whatever the initial payment is, be it a single month’s subscription fee or a full year.

You just reminded me I’ve got to mail my modem back. Thanks!

Am I the only one annoyed at the graph being backwards? The past goes on the left, the present on the right.

I wear a set of these every day, for hours at a time. I started writing what I thought would be a concise comment that turned out to be not concise. I tried to break it up because no one likes a wall of text.

To sum up, I’ll be buying another pair when my current ones kick the bucket, and another after that.

Problem -

Reaction -

Solution

Evil was a stretch, sure. Though while I appreciate the concept of not attributing malice to what incompetence explains, I think that needs to be couched by whether or not a profit is being turned by the action.

Someone? I’m talking about having a corporation admit it’s own wrongdoing, not a specific individual.

You just know someone in the chain wanted to be able to say, ‘we were the first’, then they got fact checked and had to add in that qualifier of commercially available ground station.

Surely any rational individual already acknowledges that subject as lunacy. The segment of people that after seeing the joke would fall victim to the conspiracy is bound to be smaller than the segment that find it mildly amusing.

While the company admitted no wrongdoing, it must pay $1.7 million in civil penalties, as well as $277,251 to cover investigation costs as well as to “support future enforcement of consumer protection laws.”

Why is it we allow these companies to pretend they did no evil? The penalty should have been a couple orders of magnitude higher, and they should have had to admit what they did. Obviously we don’t live in a world where both those things would happen, but we don’t even get one of them?

They surely made more than two million doing this and so the fine is meaningless. The real way to make it meaningful would be to force the admission of guilt, and then use the admission as justification to stop them from buying out the competition for 18 billion dollars.

Look how they deceived their customers, good thing they can do it to even more customers now!

It would be nice to see a standard contract, but I can’t blame them for keeping it under wraps. Unless it’s unreasonably lucrative, there’s no benefit to having it out there I can see.

Specifically when it comes to the creator pool, being their 50% of subscriptions after costs, I do wonder what that looks like. It occurs to me that it must be number of views, as I mentioned above. However this opens the question of how they determine the distribution.

If it’s simply by ranking view counts for the month across the platform, that means the largest creators that I don’t watch are getting a fraction of my subscription fee. Not the worst way to do it, but probably is the easiest from a technical perspective.

An idealistic approach may be if Nebula looked at the specific channels I watch on the platform, and divvy my subscription money amongst them, ranked by view count. This way, the channels people watch would be directly supported by my viewership, instead of the platform as a whole. Doing so would be better for the lower view count creators, but worse for the high view count creators.

I’ve not found any definitive answer to how the pool is cut up, but I’m not confident it’s the latter option I described.

Maybe someone will leak their contract at some point. Otherwise we may never know.

Wasn’t too long ago I was having a chat with someone about the ownership issue with Nebula. I never even looked into Curiosity Stream, as I assumed they were private like Nebula. Good idea to get confirmation on some of these things.

Later in the article it’s shown that the creators are given “shadow equity”. This can be thought of, presumably, as a contract directing proceeds of subscriptions - and potentially a sale - go half to the creators in the form of a pool.

Obviously this is a hit to the company’s primary marketing method, being that Nebula is a platform owned by the creators. This is either a lie, or a tongue in cheek way of being honest, seeing as the owners of Standard are also content creators.

Regardless it’s annoying this information has been drummed up by Nebula to be complicated or not public, when it is neither complicated nor private seeing it’s in Curiosity Stream’s publicly available information.

Kind of sours me on Nebula to be honest.

Damn, no one got the joke about the two top commenters in the thread becoming the same entity?

Oh well, it was pretty low effort.

Pretty big thought you’ve got there.

Have you considered joining forces with another influential thought leader such as @[email protected]? Together you could better serve the commenting community across the platform.