Think it was a different green area - the Fertile Crescent, not the Sahara. Eden would have been where modern day Kuwait is. As for ancient towns in Sahara, for a long time people wondered how the desert people lived in such a harsh area - but it turns out they've just been there since it was lush. They didn't move to the desert and learn how to survive there, they're just what's left of those populations from the Sahara, and adapted to the changing conditions.
I agree with you. There are far more wealthy transplants buying the houses and changing policies after being here 4 seconds than there are inbound homeless.
There have been more wealthy Great Lakes (Canada, Michigan) people flooding to SF than anyone else for years now. Pretty much since Detroit died.
You can always tell because they don't assimilate. Canadians LOVE their own flag, and will typically wear it on their clothing every day, while condescending all the arrogant Americans lol. Same with Michigan and the color yellow. Look what they did to JFK in the park T_T
They have the exact same views toward homeless and home ownership and opportunities here in SF as they did back home. To us locals, it looks a lot like a wave of people from a failed city are coming here with their failed policies to try and kill this city next.
All of the land is 100% owned, even the land that nobody ever uses. Nobody can use it - zoned off. There are no spots left to find and build a house somewhere. You're also not allowed to set up in a city - that's homelessness. You're not even allowed to plant seeds of food, that's illegal. The only way you are allowed to have a roof over your head or have food is when you pay someone for it, and it's all 100% already owned, you can't just go get it. How much should it cost? Hm, thousands of dollars every 30 days. Or you can get out of that if you pay hundreds of thousands up front for a mortgage and then property tax forever.
unironically. The continued existence of the pirate bay and torrents is like the remaining aqueduct from a crumbling civilization, a reminder of what we once could do, before usurpers gobbled it up to squeeze the last cent out of everything
YouTube ads are a tiny % of revenue. Celebrities on YT make their money from brand deals, not ads. Remember "Adpocalypse" and the beginning of all this ultra clean PC talk online? Before all that, sure you could make a living from YT ads, but many channels don't even have them on because it's cents. For example I have over 50k views on some videos, but the ad revenue is nothing.
"“He is most likely making £2,000 to £4,000 per video, not taking into account any affiliate deals and brand sponsorships that might be running in the background,” she said.
Based on five videos a week, this could easily produce the best part of a £1m a year."
Glad to see you deleted your other reply that was just rude.
I'd agree with the other person (and even if I agreed with you, I'd still point out that your language and attitude are quite against the HN guidelines, which are worth reading: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )
I'd personally be surprised if Russel Brand had more than $1M/yr in sponsorship deals relating to his YouTube content, which would be 50/50 split between that and ads (I think likely to be more like 75/25 in favour of ads for him).
Yes for many celebrities, and even YouTube content creators, their sponsorships will be far more valuable than the platform's ads. But I doubt there are big-money deals lining up for the kind of conspiracy nonsense he puts out now days.
(And sure, Brand also makes money from work other than YouTube, but that's not relevant to the question of what % of money for YT content comes from YT ads vs. sponsors.)
"A tiny %" to me would be 1, maybe 2%. Do you really believe he's earning $100 mil a year? I read that his estimated worth is in the low 20 millions but I can't recall where I saw that.
No, but it is kind of a good point because it looks like they turned of youtubes "in-video" ads but he still has clearly marked paid promotions and "built in" ads/promotions he does like a podcast. So both Brand and YouTube are still making almost the same money right now even though they, "aren't monetizing".
The direct parent commenter (i.e. the person the comment responds to) cannot downvote. It just does not show a downvote button for them, only an upvote button. So the downvotes have to come from everyone else.
Benny, there are valid reasons to downvote for you first comment to say nothing about your replies. Your top level comment is now gray and that is not because of jahsome.
Just like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard right? Oh wait Depp won, was awarded millions, everyone knew about it, and Amber Heard was mocked & laughed at until she faded off. Why doesn't Brand do what Depp did, if they are just making it all up?
What, are you expecting to do it, like, overnight? Depp's ordeal lasted years. I think in the end he got one million from Amber Heard, after losing maybe 50/ 80 million for movies he was removed from, plus the reputational damage, plus the psychological damage of being considered violent and abusive for years, plus having to go through two trials (one in England, at the end of which Heard's allegations were declared true), etc. Maybe Brand will do exactly what Depp did. But even if after years he turns out to be innocent, the damage- as in Depp's case- will never be undone.
Because they're not inherently lying. Brand has already admitted to banging one claimant who was 16 at the time. He's gross, but this extralegal retconning of all past sexual encounters needs to stop. It's pig-butchering by another name.
The excuses for not filing a police report of rape at the time rarely withstand scrutiny. The aggrieved have no problems broadcasting their story on social media, but have every excuse prepared for why they can't formally document it within the statute of limitations in a venue that imposes consequences for lying. Go figure.
Heard and Depp were a shitshow though. When two actors take the stand against each other, neither can be trusted. Michael Jackson is a better example.
Everyone told me "use Unity" "the biggest mistake you can make is building your own engine". How well did that advice age?
Nobody needs Unity or Unreal.
My most recent game (playshadowvane.com) is built on 100% proprietary technology, I built everything in-house down to the physics.
Always ignore mainstream game dev advice, they are just trying to sell you products. Build as much as you can in-house, it's not only better for the look/feel of the game, but no company will be able to rug pull you later.
Ultimately though it is all about time efficiency, solo or small teams have little manpower and since they don't even know if their first, second, or fifth game will sell any at all it may not make strategic sense to spend months reproducing common engine features in order to save a hypothetical percentage of revenue that they may never ultimately make. You need to test the gameplay concept as cheaply as possible.
Creating a game engine from scratch is FUN, and if game development is a fun hobby then full steam ahead. If however it is a business that you plan to make money on, you're unlikely to recoup the time investment into a bespoke engine just to test the market for your games. If the game turned out to be successful you could always piecemeal replace the commercial engine with bespoke via updates (inc. using money to hire people from the success).
> You need to test the gameplay concept as cheaply as possible.
There are some edge case concepts that I have found to be completely impenetrable on commercial engines.
Multiplayer is the #1 thing in my mind. I've gotten the FPS multiplayer examples to "work" for UE and Unity, but the confidence I have in these solutions is not great. I've seen what Unity can do (BattleBit), but I don't know how many decades of game industry black magic and hackarounds it requires to force a commercial engine to behave that well.
I really think the answer is that it depends. If you aren't trying to have a "perfect" version of some gameplay aspect (i.e. multiplayer in my case), then the commercial engines will absolutely be the fastest path to validating your idea. Put differently, I think some game ideas are not possible to validate on commercial engines. But, I don't think this is very common.
It took me about 3 days to build the engine, including custom physics, gravity/jumping, collision detection including raycasting, and about 3 weeks to finalize it and start working on the game. Game was released in under a month and we already have a small community. It was definitely worth spending a little up front time to avoid a service provider, and have more control over the mechanics and look/feel of the game.
By the way, you re-use a lot of the same code when you build in-house, like you said often times your 1st title is not a hit, but you improve upon a lot of that engine code and release subsequent games. Most AAA developers do this.
Now try to hire 20 level designers and 5 engineers who know how to work with your engine/tools.
Same applies to most software. It isn't that hard to make a new programming language or a http framework. But once you make one finding other people who know how to use it is a pain in the ass.
Level designers use tools, not really contributing at the game engine level. Long before I built Shadowvane I built a map editor in Three.js that anybody could use. If the game became profitable, in-house tooling would sophisticate and the team would be the ones shaping it. But yes if for some reason my first hire was a level designer, they could add value day 1.
