The problem I have with this solution is that I don't trust Google not to take my money and then still stalk me. This requires providing valid billing & payment information (otherwise the payment wouldn't go through) where as without it you could technically create an account with fake details.
Even when paying for it the YouTube UX is pretty terrible and you're still locked-in to their apps (even though if the service is paid there should be no commercial reason for why third-party clients couldn't be allowed, unless Google wants to "double-dip" by taking money and still tracking or annoying their users with engagement-generating UX).
I have YouTube premium (freebie holdover from Google music) and I don’t trust Google here either. In fact, I would be surprised if they (or anyone else for that matter) don’t track.
I think many people and outlets have wrongly attributed paying with not tracking because we associated tracking and ads with not paying.
Really, they have very little incentive to not track, unless that’s explicitly what you’re buying.
I am moving away from YouTube to Odysee and other platforms. Don't want a penny going to YouTube. I pay to people I follow via Substack, Locals boards and other merchandise ways.
This is a reasonable stance. It's funny that the common retort to YouTube censorship is not to use it and to go somewhere else, but then you get downvoted for saying that's exactly what you're doing.
If you sign up while under a Russian or Indian VPN, it is <$4 a month. You will need a Russian or Indian "address" for billing (at least I did) but any card will work.
> You can also pay 12 euros per month and don’t have any ads.
How can I pay 12 euros per month and not have ANY ads on YouTube?
By that I mean YouTube ads and native video ads (I can’t) if I need to pay 12 euros per month to ONLY get rid of YouTube ads then I will continue to use ublock + sponsorblock.
If YouTube forced content creators to tag the timeframe for in video ads and auto skipped it for premium users I would gladly pay the subscription fee.
Just as I’m not interested in paying for internet news just to still have ads shoved down my throat and pay for streaming service that still serve ads. I also refuse to pay YouTube to still see ads by sponsors.
I don't think ad-blocking is immoral, on the contrary I think it's necessary, and I despise the amount of ads thrown at us. My computers and phones have every form of adblocker/sponsorblocker available.
That being said, I can afford it so I would be a humongous hypocrite if I didn't support services when an ad-free option exists.
On windows you can use win+g which allows you to record videos of the current window. I think it’s for games but it works for everything else pretty well.
A sandbox mode would be nice, where there's just an indestructible enemy base, where you can test and debug your code without the pressure of being attacked.
Also in the tutorial the use of for-of would be better in my opinion, as it is better understandable and has less clutter.
At my current company we play the "soccer" mode after the sprint planing and we have so much fun.
Whats really nice that it is cross platform and has very low requirements, so it runs on every computer without a hitch and there is no excuse to ditch the little round.
If I would ever would launch a product, I would choose AGPL for the open source side and provide a commercial license for those who need it. This has the advantage over MIT/Apache that if someone wants to build a business arround your free software, they have to provide their changes to everyone.
I discovered this for pgmodeler[1] and found it a very good way to monetize the development of the application.
Correction: the AGPL only means that you have to provide the open source code to your customers (folks who interact with the service), not to everyone (unless of course the service is open to everyone). Of course those customers could throw the code up on GitHub but in practice they probably won't.
I think a better option would be "Source Available" rather than AGPL. AGPL isn't tested in courts, but the _last_ thing a company would want is all of their source being forced open because they used demo'd some tool internally. A "source available" option allows a company to review your code or even solve their own problems, but without risk of being sued by a third party.
That's the point. Companies will choose the commercial license, then, out of fear of getting sued. If they want to review the code and demo it, they can look at the git repository or use a hosted demo version by the author. In this case, there are no fewer capabilities than with closed-source software.
If you want to have some unified API check https://enode.com/connect, but that too costs a premium.