The video being in SD doesn't make it free to host. YouTube still has to pay for the servers that store the videos and for delivering the video to you. And guess what! Most people don't watch in HD and don't even realize it.
Is it cheaper? Yeah. Is it free, no. Delivering just the audio for billions of users would cost more than most people will see in a lifetime ten times over.
Jesus fucking Christ, did it take your only two neurons sparking from ear to ear to generate that thought?
Youtube has a cost by hosting the videos for you and a billion other users to view. If you can't see how that costs a shitton of money, you might actually be an idiot.
That's kinda the point YouTube is going for. People who do not pay, and who use ad blockers are actively costing them money. People don't realize how expensive it is to host an hd video that can be streamed to millions of people. There's a reason no one has been able to seriously compete with YouTube.
I'm actually beginning to believe the setting for Ready Player One. In the next ten years it might just be cheaper and safer for children to be given a nice VR headset and attend school fully virtually, hell they might actually get a better education since it'll be easier to mute misbehaving children.
Not exactly going to work for kids under 12 or so, and there's probably lots of eye strain associated with being in a VR headset for hours upon hours, but hey at least the risk of being shot will be lower since there's clearly no way in hell that we will get laws to control weapons.
That's definitely a strawman or just a straight up misrepresentation of what cookie clicker is. You only actually "manually click a picture of a cookie" for about one to five minutes, then you basically never click it again. It's described as an idle game where you play by not playing, and the core mechanic is "number get bigger faster". The game described in this thread is mindlessly clicking a button, no depth, no automation or acceleration. Just click a billion times to win.
Playing devil's advocate, I can understand the point because I already think in terms of value per hour.
That's why I can justify buying a less critically acclaimed game with more replayability than I can justify one that you realistically can only play once (starfield vs latest COD). And why I generally don't play mmo's because I can get a new game each month for $10, or play a $60 for a year straight. The total number of hours I have in a game like Red Dead Redemption 2 or GTA 5 is crazy compared to how many hours I had in the last battlefield.
But it's not just about total hours. My first playthrough of Outer Wilds, Subnautica, and BioShock, were each more "valuable" than the time I spent in GTA, even though I've spent 10-100x the time in GTA. Then you've got games like Prey and Minecraft that have high replayability that is consistently high "value" time.
Games currently have an insane value/cost ratio. When compared to a theatre movie that costs ~$10/h, you'd have to have a phenomenal time. Especially compared with the cost per hour of a game like Skyrim or Baldur's Gate where you have to spend like a thousand hours just to get the whole story of the game.
It's also a weight thing. Tampons are pretty light, it's like one hundred per pound, so they probably said "we can budget x pounds for this" and didn't think much about the reasoning behind why they're sending several hundred tampons into space, but we're entirely focused on how.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding or if the other commenters are misunderstanding. Sounds like you want to stop being enabled by other people.
The answer is you cut those people out. If they are actively encouraging bad behavior you have expressed the desire to change, then your only option is to minimize the amount of time you spend with the person. Martial Goldsmith has a really nice book on how to effectively change behavior called Triggers. (Yes the name of the book is terrible)
Or maybe I'm just extremely sleep deprived and not getting the joke.
I have never seen a golf course next to a hospital... Maybe it's regional, but near me, most courses have many made ponds that hold rain water and you can smell the pond water when the sprinklers come on. The ponds can hold several Olympic swimming pools worth of water.
Most of the US corn crop goes to animal feed, so no you don't get food from it. At least not directly. If you totaled up all of the land used by golf courses, you'd be at .1% of just the amount of land used for animal feed. And about 1% of the land used by home lawns.
They're not that bad, there are much worse enemies than golf courses in general. Again, courses that are in the middle of a city that do nothing but increase property value are terrible, but most are perfectly fine and use way less water than you think.
Most courses use man made ponds as both hazards and as retention ponds so they can use that rain water.
You know what uses three times the amount of water per acre? Corn. And almonds use about ten times more water than corn. And people have only just started caring about lawns, that use two orders of magnitude more water, fertilizer, and land than golf courses.
Golf courses really aren't that bad from an ecological point of view when compared acre per acre to other large man made structures. They're generally pretty small when compared to other large landscaping projects at 30-80 acres. The issue is when a city has like twenty courses just for the purpose of driving up housing prices.
Would that land be better as a park? Probably, but this is the US, someone would see an unprofitable "empty" plot of land and throw million dollar houses on it.
On paper it makes sense. In practice it's a way for them to act like something was done when in reality they're given a paid vacation.
The largest part of the problem is how loyal they are to each other. If a teacher gets fired for misconduct, it's exponentially harder to get another job as a teacher. Even if it's in an entirely different state... Where a cop can go to the next precinct and get a desk job without much hassle.
That kinda goes back to what I said about you also needing to factor in how well you and the other people can separate the two environments. If that is a personal limitation, then it's best to understand it and manage it as you suggest.
Personally I have no issue keeping work at work and home at home. There have been many times where my coworkers and I have had a tense week at work, full of disagreement and debates, only to hang out like bros on the weekend. There's one coworkers who can't make that separation, and that's fine. They've realized it and I'll respect that boundary.
The video being in SD doesn't make it free to host. YouTube still has to pay for the servers that store the videos and for delivering the video to you. And guess what! Most people don't watch in HD and don't even realize it.
Is it cheaper? Yeah. Is it free, no. Delivering just the audio for billions of users would cost more than most people will see in a lifetime ten times over.