The Bucks can’t wear cream uniforms because they interfere with digital ads(paullukas.substack.com) |
The Bucks can’t wear cream uniforms because they interfere with digital ads(paullukas.substack.com) |
As an NBA fan, I hate how ads keep getting crammed into every piece of equipment on the court, the jerseys, etc.
At some marketing meeting this was brought up and was promptly considers a feature, not a bug.
see https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-fans-are-already-fed-up...
Wow. That statement is dripping with contempt for their viewers. It sucks that these huge sports leagues have little in the way of competition.
But then the NHL is just like "hey, away jerseys are white and the ice is white and the boards are white and we really dgaf".
I went through a stage of mourning for the first couple weeks of the season. Now I'm just at a loss of what to do with my time...
You'd be amazed how un-annoying it is to watch commercials with the sound off. Sometimes you watch and wonder what it's actually an ad FOR.
So, 100% of the time?
You do realize that you’re an enthusiastic and active participant in what is the marketing and advertising project of a VC firm, right?
I think what you mean to say is that the advertising you like isn’t a blight and the advertising you don’t like is a blight.
There may or may not be groups of people doing this already and posting about it in certain venues...
So fitting!
Video is available when I want it. The amount of content seems almost endless.
> After thinking about it for a bit, Godsey agreed to let me tell that story.
> After thinking about it for a bit, Godsey agreed to let me tell that story.
The closest I've seen is Miami Heat's Vice unis https://www.nba.com/heat/2021-heat-vice-uniform-collection.
... and what was told privately is now public...
Can somebody that journalisms tell me what just happened?
The author got permission
> “I’m not sure I want to deal with the can of worms it will open, so I’ll tell you privately,” he wrote back.
And then the author published it. WTF? They won't have a good relationship now!
> After thinking about it for a bit, Godsey agreed to let me tell that story.
All that outrage for nothing.
> After thinking about it for a bit, Godsey agreed to let me tell that story. Here’s a transcript of a Zoom conversation I had with him a few days ago, edited for length and clarity.
Auto flagging ads is pretty good, but even don't bother, just using kodi as a front end with the plugin and skipping forward 3 minutes when an ad comes on does most of the job. (sometimes you do another 30 seconds or 1 minute and you get really good at it).
Start watching your program 10-20 minutes late and no ads.
Live sport is the only place I see tv ads at all nowadays - hence the crush and cram maybe?
Everything you do to avoid ads, from blocking your ears, to ripping out magazine pages, running myth or equivalent, pi hole and similar adblockers must be made explicitly completely legal on the grounds of self-defence and proper care of your family. Regardless of the legality it's kind of your ethical duty.
I haven't had any luck explaining to my wife that advertisements are basically a sort of cancerous meme designed to deliver misinformation and manipulate you into wasting your money on products that focus more on self-promotion than quality or value. I just sound like a jerk and she somehow takes it as a personal attack
I originally thought of it as "subtracting out annoying people" but "subtracting out ads" is much more compelling.
Also at first e.g. people having loud conversations in public or on the train and not having a clue what they are saying meant they were much less distracting.
Gutenberg opened a huge can of worms. Day 1 bibles, day 2 pamphlets, and sooner than you know it, there's a whole internet popping cookies all over.
No, I don't like it much either, and maybe we should charge advertisers high fees for the privilege of messing with the collective mind, which is in none too good shape from all their ministrations. Perhaps that would dial it down.
Obviously some people would disagree, but therein lies the problem; if one group of people wants to have professional sports and saturate society with ads, and the other group doesn't want to be saturated with ads, then society is saturated with ads. It's the same as the noisy neighbor problem; if one neighbor is noisy, and the other is quiet, life is perfect for the noisy neighbor and hell for the quiet neighbor.
Or we really only gaf about the money.
Edit: https://twitter.com/NYIslanders/status/1589812414966468608 is a good example of ad creative being way too distracting
If you drive down this street, or live near that intersection, you're advertised to and that's that.
Some places do ban billboards, and they look really nice to my eye. Whereas a magazine can decide to have or not have ads, and a video provider can choose to be ad-free or ad-supported, so too should the public be able to decide if billboards are allowed in their town or state.
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
Billboards should be just wiped out, there isn't any real utility from them, and for the most part they just make things very ugly.
Having giant ads in public spaces is ridiculous.
You really notice it when you go to a place with not much in the way of regulation and they are everywhere.
Around Paris they have giant neon signs on top of residential buildings, which is really odd because they have more awareness of that stuff, it feels very cyberpunk to me, as far as I know they don't even have that in most of the US even where giant road signs exist.
A small icon on the exit sign is fine for practicality.
Paradoxically, there are ways to make digital ads much more efficient but the system is a giant cluster of a mess. It's hard to fathom but many big companies just throw money out the window and hope that it sticks even with 'great reporting' it's a lot of fuzz, and nobody wants to own up to it - the exec at the company, the agency, the ad buyers, and the marketplace, they are in a weird kind of systemic collusion about it all kind of 'pretending'. Of course some entities are very effective about it as well but the amount of 'bad dollars' out there actually makes efficient spending hard.
There are also very bad issues of scale, and a lot of small businesses just can't compete, in an ideal world there would be a 'locality' effect priced in. The 'invisible hand' just doesn't work very well with most kinds of ads.
When traveling interstates across the U.S. they’re valuable, because they let you know what you didn’t think to search for online to visit along the way.
(Plus obviously searching for places to visit while driving is dangerous, or merely seriously inconvenient if you have to frequently stop to conduct said searches.)
I’m a fan of old-fashioned billboards on the interstate in rural areas where local orchards/attractions/restaurants need to get the word out. I just don’t want digital billboards blinding me at night.
It sounds interesting on a psychological/developmental level too, children are routinely taught to ignore certain thoughts, concepts or emotions. Looks like technology could offer increased level of granularity and control. Scary times.
https://old.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/rdqu7o/las_favo...
https://old.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/p3ry42/you_can_...
Any city government that allows an installation like that deserves to be dissolved. How have people not figured out how to destroy that monstrosity yet?
It's awful.
So glad I moved right before they started construction on this. This is on 24/7, and how that is remotely acceptable in a place people live I have no idea.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/real-estate/rep...
Just like every HN commenter who thinks they hate ads, the truth is they hate the ads they hate and (at best) pretend the other ads aren’t ads.
Also I really like ads and am quite stupid so that might explain why I thought my comment was a good one.
One can enjoy a single aspect of something without that implying total agreement.
I hate advertisement in nearly every aspect, I hate 'SV culture' in nearly every aspect -- but I can acknowledge that the collision of those two themes created a community that I enjoy, and has facilitated conversation that is generally on a more interesting level than the majority of communities out there on the internet that I could be spending time at otherwise.
>You support something that you think is a blight because you don’t think this is a blight.
I don't/can't/won't fall for the idea that 'HN=advertisement'; it's simply not true. HN has become something that is greater than the sum of its' parts, to ignore the other qualities that drive people to participate here would be disingenuous.
You appear to be quite confident in believing that this is the truth. I don't support HN, in fact I frequently denounce it (though I will say that dang is one of the better moderators I've seen). The reason to participate here despite that is because sacrificing power for the sake of principles is a losing strategy, despite what idealists would prefer to believe. You can't affect the world by running off and being a hermit in the woods; you must go to where the people are.
Alternatively, you could have an ad-blocking browser and not see the ads at all.
"Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent"
I think the thing to do is to focus on yourself rather than the person you're talking to: instead of saying to someone that ads are "designed to manipulate you", say that they're "designed to manipulate, and I know that I'm not always strong enough to resist being swayed to want to buy something I don't actually want or need".
Frame it as ads making you, personally, feel manipulated. Don't try to proselytize and tell people that they're being manipulated, because no one likes to be told that they're gullible and weak. So focus on how ads affect you, not on how you believe they affect the person you're trying to convince. Because even if you're right about how it affects them -- and you probably are -- it doesn't feel good to be told that.
So that's the obvious end and you can see pretty easily how it exists all the way up the spectrum from the extremely serious effects through to the utterly "well thats 30 seconds I'm never getting back" level of trivial.
The advertising industry has no regard for you or your family's or your community's mental health. None. This is clear to me and you can form your own view. Given I believe that, we have to run defence. And you do, I do, everyone does. "Kids, that is fake, that isn't real." If you never had a discussion like that with younger humans, be they your kids, extended family, friends or randoms then, I kind of wonder why not? How much defence should we be playing against it all? As much as we can is my answer. It's wrong not to make some kind of effort.
Where are you drawing the line for the health and welfare of your family?
Most of the time when I try to float the idea that advertising is making someone sad so that they make purchases, that person tells me about the Great Products they discovered through instagram.
I guess it's the same as brand worship, something else that doesn't resonate with me. I've bought good products from particular brands, but the brand doesn't in itself matter to me at all, only the particular product I'm interested in.
This is how you know HN is an absolutely fantastic ad. People who “hate” ads will fall all over themselves to explain why this ad isn’t an ad. “You see it’s different because reasons. I would never like an ad.”
I do believe the other reasons people engage here are real. But the fundamental underlying reason this place exists is for marketing and advertising for a VC firm.
Precisely. I used to be an avid Arsenal fan, but now it seems that I would support "Emirates Fly Better". The fact that it's on every player's shirt one might say that "TV coverage is still very clearly focussed on the shirt itself". I do enjoy admitting, their website https://www.arsenal.com/ is rather tastefully done (I turned off all extensions to have a good look), though. And 'Visit Rwanda' doesn't seem to such be a bad thing, though I couldn't find an Emirates flight to there.
Marketing and advertising in general. Their spend billions to force their way into every aspect of people's lives, steal their attention, spy on their lives, sell their data, force malware onto their platforms, all so they can force people to think in a way they wouldn't ordinarily? It's truly dark, inhumane, mind control. Screw them. If I want your widget I'll come find it.
Of course they do: people could spend their time doing (or watching) something else. Watch a TV show or movie, read a book, listen to some music, practice playing an instrument, cook some food, write a software program, go on a walk; there's endless things to do with your time besides watching sports. If you don't like the ads and the contempt for viewers from the people running the sports leagues, then stop giving them your time and attention.
So, no, I'm not bothered by Google's domination when I actually don't use it much. Doesn't seem to be "domination" to me.
If viewership stays the same then “they got used to it”
Can't right say that I'm unaffected.
* Recent HN discussion about the infamous AP writings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32790951
Money is speech in the US. And corporations have more of it than their advertisement recipients, which is why we see ads.
Maybe book a time slot. If the light disappears in this time slot, you get the bounty.
1. Person wanting defacement would indicate the amount for the bounty, along with the message to be posted on the defaced property
2. Vandal contacts payer and agrees to conditions. He/she also gives the client their public key
3. Vandal performs defacement, then add the specified message to it, encrypted in his or her private key
4. Vandal notifies the person paying the bounty that the job is complete, sending him/her a picture of the defacement with encrypted message
4. Payer decrypts message, verifies it matches, then pays out the agreed upon bounty to the vandal
To be honest, that's what spray tags look like to me already, random, meaningless, unique. I've photographed hundreds of tags and have never seen two alike.
Now, hacking the ad screen with a virus that displays a unique artwork... that'd be cool.
Privkey QRs would be a bit ugly
[1] This may be because I was downloading things reasonably quickly after they went up - waiting a day or two might have got better results?
There's a flag to tell it to reencode up to and after the cuts, which would probably help a lot.
Yep - https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/wiki/FAQ
>Video files cannot be cut at exact timestamps without re-encoding. yt-dlp does not re-encode the video by default, even when cutting is required. You can use --force-keyframes-at-cuts to force re-encoding; however, this process is slow - there is no way around this.
I'd probably rather just tell it to mark the sponsor segments as chapters and then skip them manually. I think it marks them by default.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGDgnp7-uck
("Is that a PS Vita" in the middle of a dramatic, slow-paced show)
Either via product placement, or the ad section starts inconspicuously and gradually morphs into a full featured endorsement
If it's a 10:01 waffle piece with a huge sponsor segment before you get to the good stuff, I won't watch it.
Let's Game It Out is a great example of how to do the sponsor piece. I want to watch him take the piss out of the sponsor as much as the game.
Also, you can just download the video with youtube-dl and watch it that way.
I'd definitely like to disable the looping at the very least.
