Then they will continue to lose elections. Not being Trump obviously isn't enough.
SirEDCaLot
joined 1 year ago
This is exactly it. It's white Trump wins. Why people are willing to overlook all of his craziness- because his platform is one of radical change. He may be crazy and he may be full of shit but at least he is talking about change. And when you're hurting and you see the entire country hurting and you see nobody in charge giving a fuck, or worse telling you this is how it's supposed to be, you want radical change.
They also failed to put forward any real new ideas or new candidates. If you read the room even a little, you see that the American people are pissed off and want change. Obama got elected on a platform of radical change. Trump got elected on a platform of radical change. Hillary and Kamala, no radical change in their platform, both lost to the radical change pushing Trump.
Put forward some younger candidates with new ideas and new energy, put forward some populist policies, stop playing on identity politics and expecting that everybody who's black or female is going to vote for you by default.
Actually do that and you win elections.
I think both you and her are wrong. Dems lost big in this last election. So it's time to take a fucking step back and ask why. What needs changing? The party is in trouble. And they are in trouble because they are listening to big business and political consultants and not voters and people like AOC and Bernie. Kamala was supposed to be easy 'safe' candidate to defeat Trump. How'd that work? Hillary was supposed to be the 'safe' candidate to beat him the first time. Safer than Bernie and his 'crazy radical platform' of actually making the country work for the fucking people who live in it. How'd that work out?
Maybe having candidates that manipulate the primary process and count on superdelegates doesn't work. Maybe putting someone forward who polled at 2% among Democrats before election season doesn't work. Maybe 'I'm not Trump' isn't fucking good enough to win the White House.
Unfortunately I don't see many Democrats talking about this lesson, let alone taking it to heart. So I am looking forward to four more years of complaining and hopelessly attempting damage control while putting forward no new ideas whatsoever.
It's all about advertising. On a web page, which is cheap to create and cheap to host, the only ad you can really get is a pop-up or similar, and those don't pay very much. On the video, which is expensive to create and expensive to host, you can have 30 or 45 seconds of video ads, which pay a lot more.
19 minutes into a 21 minute video and there hasn't been a drill press on screen yet
And that's intentional. The algorithm rewards them for having people watch more / watch longer, and a 21 min video might have 2 or 3 ad rolls. If someone watches all the way thru, creator gets more money and higher placement in search results.
I like YouTube as a concept but the algorithms are totally enshittifying it.
Can you run Firefox on a Chromebook?
When I'm 'watching a video' I watch it all the way thru. However often I'm looking for something specific, like how to do something, and a lot more tutorials are now in video form than written (which I don't love but whatever). In that situation I'm usually looking for a specific piece of information which often requires scrubbing around in multiple videos. Same thing if I'm doing research on a product, while I might watch a review will the way through I'm more often looking for some specific things like video of the interface or does it have some specific setting or can I set it up without needing a phone app or cloud account. That requires scrubbing around in multiple videos to see bits of the setup UI. Unusable if each video has an ad
While their statement is entirely correct, they're still wrong. YouTube is basically unusable without an ad blocker. Multiple 10 to 15 second long unskippable ads before the video even starts, and unless you watch videos all the way through you end up watching as much ad as you do content. It is damn near impossible to hop around between videos trying to find the one you want because of the pre-roll ads on every vid. On the other hand, with an ad block enabled YouTube is actually quite nice. The engagement algorithm is fucking trash of course but if you know what you're looking for and you go directly to it it's pretty good.
That's assuming raw PCM data, no compression (lossy or lossless) whatsoever.
LDAC can do lossless redbook audio (16 bit 44.1 KHz) at 990kbps. All other modes are lossy.
It's probably doing something much like FLAC- lossy encoder + residual corrections to ensure you get the original waveform back out, but with less bandwidth than raw PCM.
Problem is, the status quo of the last 20 to 30 years is significantly different than the status quo shortly before that. Income inequality is through the roof. The middle class is stagnant. There's much less upward mobility than there previously was. And for the majority of the people, that are on the lower half of the income spectrum, costs have gone up and up and up and wages have not. For 15 to 20 years people kind of dealt with it because standard of living was pretty decent before that. But you can only squeeze so much blood out of the turnip. People see boomers who were able to have a house and a family on one average 40hr/week income and they say what the hell we now have both partners working full-time and we can barely afford ourselves let alone a kid. That's why make America great again is such a great slogan, because it invokes those days when the American dream was still alive.
I would say Republicans are much more responsible for the extraction of the nation's wealth, but Democrats happily sat by and fiddled while Rome burned and were eager participants in the extreme offshoring of all American manufacturing type work in the '90s and 2000s. There was a ridiculous idea that this would somehow make life better for Americans, that everybody would get retrained to do computers or something like that, and we would become a nation 'better than' having to build our own stuff. Obviously that didn't work out.
Come to today, and while Democrats I think have better policies for the average worker, none of their messaging addresses the major systemic problems that need to be fixed.
Obama's did. Hope, change, yes we can. That was what the country needed. He won on a platform of radical change. Unfortunately he turned out to be a moderate change president but I think he generally did a decent job. What was Hillary's platform? The only thing a lot of people learned about her is that she's too stupid to hire decent IT people who use encryption, and that she has a private and public position on things, in other words don't tell the plebs what you really think cuz they won't vote for you. Then you have Kamala, magically frocked by some DNC elites to sit in the big chair, who ran a pretty boring campaign that seemed to, like Hillary's, be based on 'I'm not Trump so of course I'm going to win'. Obviously that wasn't good enough.
If the DNC wants to start winning the White House, they need to clean their own house. Get rid of all the status quo dinosaurs like Pelosi and reform the party into one of the people. Find someone like Bernie and put him in charge. Ditch wedge issues like gun control that only cost votes. And make a party platform that focuses on the common man. Not just the blue man, every man. Then you win elections.