AnAngryAlpaca

In the 90s there where a lot more OS available to compete agains windows, who already had existing software (sometimes better and more capable) to compete with windows: MacOS (Popular in print, layout), BeOS, OS2/warp (tried to replace windows), Amiga OS (best for video editing work at the time), Atari, Novell Netware.

It's not exactly like people where desperate for another OS at this point in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Windows as a software package would have never been affordable to individuals or local-level orgs in countries like India and Bangladesh (especially in the 2000’s) that are now powerhouses of IT. ... Had the OS been too difficult to pirate, educators and local institutions in these countries would have certainly shifted to Linux and the like.

While i somewhat agree with your overall statement, this part is just wrong. Linux in the late 1990s and 2000s was very different from today, where you just plug in a CD/USB and select your region. Linux back then was very nerdy, you had to choose your hardware first to make sure there was a linux driver and the installation process was very difficult, especially before plug&play where you had to know which IRQs and slots you had to use for network, sound and videocard to avoid conflicts. I remember trying to install Linux from a CD, only to work my war from one error message to the next because it did not like my videocard, soundcard or both.

Also, what would you do with a linux pc at home or at work if it could not run word, excel, duke nukem 3D, TTD, programs you knew from work/school or software you could pirate from your friends?

downvotes come at a “cost”, whereby if you want to downvote someone you have to reply directly to them with some justification, say minimum number of characters, words, etc.

I would choose a different solution. Instead of always up or down voting by 1 point, everyone gets a fixed points budget per day, that is then distributed between each post you vote on. So if you only up vote one post, this vote counts more than the vote from someone who votes on 100 posts per day.

This would solve the mass down voting of legit content on YouTube or Facebook, where quite often conspiracy dipshits in their telegram channels post videos or Channels that should be down voted, while their own right wing propaganda gets upvoted. So the most active accounts who spent all day on the social would be muted, while average User would have a more important voice.

"controlling people from theirself" also prevents them from drunk driving and killing others.

I get what you are saying, but you could argue that google is pretty much a monopoly at this point, using their power trying to extract money from customers they could never do if their was any real competition with a similar number of channels and customers.

I think most users see google/youtube as a "the internet", or a utility as important as power, water and heat. And don't forget that google already requires users to "pay" for their services with data and ads in other services (maps, search, mail) as well.

I got the AdBlock screen only every 2nd or 3rd video...

Same here. That's not 3 videos per day, but total before it stops playing.

I wonder what tech and it creators say about this change. They will probably see a dip in views, engagement and number of clicks they promised their sponsors.

EInk and monochrome LCD Type Displays need very low power, because you only need a tiny bit to switch them from one side to the other, but none to keep it black or white.

The downside is that sometimes you get really bad quality, like some guy filming it in a cinema with terrible focus, contrast and sound and people walking in and out...

Sooo…, you’ll literally need to use adblocker to use ~~YouTube~~ the internet. Interesting.

How much would it cost to show 2girls1cup as umskipable ad to musk fanboys? Asking for a friend...

Because the people or companies they report on still use the platform :(