The act of interacting on YouTube used to be an entirely public matter. You could say anything you want as long as it didn’t break any laws and trust it to be thrown into the public. Nowadays you comment on something, and there’s a 75% chance of you being shadowbanned without knowing why, with the video owner being the main filter of what people see, forcing feuds to take place not in comments but in back and forth videos, since this means everyone’s content has become their own little echo chamber, which means a stable argument is impossible, and combined with the fact YouTube is highly indifferent to even most of its most important rules broken, as well as combined with the fact popularity is based entirely on luck now, means anyone can use it as a platform to slander any person or topic completely unchallenged if they’re the one who gets popular while the challenger cannot. And because YouTube once had a reputation for being the best platform for information, most people who grew up with this reputation who have never had to deal with its modern incarnation don’t think to question anything. It’s a literal den of snakes now, you got misinformation trolls coming out its wazoo. What ways have you used to circumvent the issue?
Stopped watching YouTube in November. Some mild regrets, but mostly a good decision.
I don’t read through nor comment on youtube videos at all. I just watch what I want/need to watch and close the window after. It’s not a good place or format for proper discussion so it’s never going to be a good experience. A proper place for discussion would be forum type formats with nested threads, like here on Lemmy. If you are still willing to read reddit comments instead, there’s a browser extension that replaces youtube comments with reddit comments. I don’t know how it works because I haven’t tried it myself, but that’s an option.
I don’t comment on YouTube videos and that solves the issue for me. The comments are often crap anyways. So I don’t think I’m missing out on anything.
I rarely use YouTube as a source of information, it’s a source of entertainment like 95% of the time for me and most of the rest is stuff like natural science documentations, which isn’t really subject to the kinds of issues you describe.
Strictly from a viewer’s perspective, I use a YouTube client alternative (like GrayJay, Freetube, NewPipe) and subscribe only to the channels I want to see content from. Then I can look at video suggestions for given videos to see relevant content. This entirely removes me from the algorithm as well as any personalization that would put me in an echo chamber. I also branch out to reliable and unbiased news sources, better search engine alternatives, and so on.
I tightly curated my feeds to stick to trusted sources on specific topics. The most “controversial” topic in my feed might be how to cook certain things certain ways or maybe business analysis. The rest of my topics are known, trustworthy primary sources for things such as software, electrical, and mechanical engineering, culinary science and techniques.
There’s also a bunch of “how to more efficiently do [thing that I already do] with [system I already use/own].” It’s pretty difficult to get suckered into misinformation on techniques for automatic code generation in C# or how to cook a carbonara sauce from the author whose books I already own.
Something that really helps is never clicking on anything like “I should have bought this years ago” or any similar shit. I realize that I might be missing out on things that would actually make a certain task easier. But if it’s really life changing, I’m sure one of my trusted sources, online or otherwise, will get around to suggesting it to me.
Staying away from talking heads, even ones I like, goes a very long way to preventing blatant bullshit ever getting suggested. I click quite often on “don’t suggest again.” It’s a chunk of effort up front, but then it’s a small amount of maintenance from there.
Is automatic code generation LLM?
I’d be into a video about how to do that without falling into the pitfalls
Is automatic code generation LLM
Not at all. In my case, automatic code generation is a process of automated parsing of an existing Ruby on Rails API code plus some machine-readable comments/syntax I created in the RoR codebase. The way this API was built and versioned, no existing Gem could be used to generate docs. The code generation part is a set of C# “templates” and a parser I built. The parser takes the Ruby API code plus my comments, and generates unit and integration tests for nUnit. This is probably the most common use case for automatic code generation. But… doesn’t building unit tests based on existing code potentially create a bad unit test? I’m glad you asked!
The API endpoints are vetted and have their own RoR tests. We rebuilt this API in something more performant than Ruby before we moved it to the cloud. I also built generators that output ASP.NET API endpoint stubs with documentation. So the stubs just get filled out and the test suite is already built. Run Swashbuckle on the new code and out comes the OpenAPI spec, which is then used to build our documentation site and SDKs. The SDKs and docs site are updated in lockstep with any changes to the API.
Edit: extra word and spaces
That is really cool! I am not educated enough to understand details. But is it similar to how a compiler uses high level syntax to generate low level assembly code?
Is compiling a type of automatic code generation?
But is it similar to how a compiler uses high level syntax to generate low level assembly code?
This is an apt comparison, actually.
Is compiling a type of automatic code generation?
This is also an apt comparison. Most modern languages are interpreted rather than compiled. C#*, Java, Ruby, Python, Perl… these all sit on top of runtimes or virtual machines such as .NET or JVM. Compilation is a process of turning human-readable language into assembly. Interpreting turns human-readable programming language into instructions for the runtime; in the case of .NET, C# gets interpreted into MSIL which tells the .NET runtime what to do, which in turn tells the hardware what to do.
Automatic code generation is more of “Hey computer, look at that code. Now translate that code to do different things, but use these templates I made.”
FWIW, compilers was two semesters in engineering school, so I’m trying to keep this discussion accessible.
*Before anyone rightfully and correctly jumps on my shit about C#, yes, I know C# is technically a compiled language.
Thanks, this is all very interesting. I never knew what .NET was before. Now it makes sense that programs require you to host the specific runtime required for that version of the instructions for the runtime to work.
I usually use YouTube for videos and Lemmy/masto for discussion
Not using YouTube
