Uber drivers gang up to cause surge pricing, research says - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/02/uber-drivers-gang-cause-surge-pricing-research-says/ <comment><USER4> Obvious in hindsight. This sort of thing is inevitable any time you have dumb software on one side and humans on the other side.

I'm mostly a fan of these non-taxi "taxi" services, but it seems like they are slowly and painfully rediscovering why taxis ended up so regulated in the first place.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I'm mostly not a fan, now that we're a few years in. Waves of people inexperienced, untrained in shuttling people around a major metro have resulted in downtown Chicago being an utter mess compared to only a few years ago. Chicago forced cab drivers to go through a training and certification course that at least forced them to understand the major routes and grid system we're on, and every time I've been in an uber they are completely tethered to their phones nav systems.

So, now we've got an army of drivers who can't drive, don't know where they are going, playing with their phones all day. It makes for an unpleasant experience whether you're on a bike, driving you car, or sometimes just walking across the street.

<comment><USER6> I used to think cabs were terrible drivers, but most of them (especially in heavily regulated markets) are very experienced drivers and simply disregard rules of the road that are inconvenient for them.

In contrast, 'ride sharing' drivers seem to have no sense of direction, and are genuinely oblivious to the rules of the road.

In short, when in either type of car, I fear for my life.

<comment><USER4> That's interesting. I wonder if this is a regional thing, or just different personal experiences. For me, I've never had a particularly bad Uber driver, but I've had incredibly bad taxi drivers. (My favorite was the guy who decided that driving down I-395 in Arlington was a good time to catch up on some paperwork. He kept the cab on the road, but only by using all three lanes. Thankfully it was about 2AM and nobody else was using them.)

While driving, I tend to fear for my life when taxis are around, but whenever I spot an Uber or Lyft car, they seem to behave unremarkably.

<comment><USER7> There's also the other side of the problem that you don't get to see as a passenger. Uber/Lyft drivers in a rush to get to their pickups drive like maniacs here in SF. I'm from a developing country and I'm used to drivers who disregard rules but even those pay attention to the surroundings - you can read them and know if they are going to yield or not. But having gotten used to the polite driving of SF a few years ago, I find it quite dangerous to walk my dog out now. I stick to interior roads and wait till I know for sure that the car would yield for me before I cross. Driving and Biking have become usually miserable as well.

My only request is that passengers don't encourage this by blindly rating everyone 5 stars. Take _at least_ two star off for unsafe driving - <USER2> stopping at a stop sign, not yielding to pedestrians, not giving enough space while passing a bicyclist and _at least_ one star for not following the rules - driving on the bus lane, double parking in the middle of a busy road, driving too fast on a 25Mph zone, not waiting long enough for the pedestrians to pass safe ...etc.

If the economics don't work out for the drivers, the fare has to go up. By keeping the fare artificially low and pushing drivers to accommodate too many trips Uber and Lyft are ruining the experience for everyone and in doing so are perpetuating the need for more people to use them instead of considering alternate transport modes. This, sooner or later, will ruin it for everyone.

Take it from me, America cannot handle a developing country style traffic. It requires a different set of skills. People here are used to predictable traffic.

<comment><USER8> Never had an Uber driver driving like maniac. To be sure, I live to the south of SF and try to never drive into SF unless I absolutely have to, and when I do, I pretty much expect developing-country-type driving environment. But I may just be spoiled by suburbia-type traffic patterns. In any case, even SF Uber drivers has always been excellent for me. I realize that's anecdata, so I wonder if somebody did any kind of robust survey of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> During a fare, an uber driver told me that when he goes to an area with lots of drivers, he will turn off his app for a minute or so to artificially decrease the number of drivers in the area. If this is practiced by multiple drivers repeatedly, the result can cause a surge. He told me that he does this, and, that he holds training sessions where he teaches this practice to other drivers, among other things. I do not know if this was actually effective or if it still is.

<comment><USER10> This is easy for Uber to fix. The surge (or the calculation of drivers) just needs to be delayed by 15mins or so. He can still turn off his app, but now he'll have to do it for more than 15mins, thus potentially losing 1 or 2 rides.

<comment><USER11> Uber presumably takes a fixed cut of the fare, so they have at least some incentive to look the other way during surge collusion. If the drivers do it simultaneously to both Lyft and Uber then both companies will be happy to see this going on.

<comment><USER12> As far as I know, Uber does not take a cut on surge pricing. The extra money goes straight to the driver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> People game the system. Always. Have learned that for years when it comes to safety systems.

Even uneducated people become very intelligent when it comes to gaming the system to their advantage. It is always a cat and rat game between technical adjustments and when people find a way to game the system again.

<comment><USER14> This.

People learned the phone company would refund any Denied All Knowledge of a long distance call. Call up, get a credit.

Then phone company said you cant DAK calls 2 months in a row: so customers called in every other month.

Then, they eliminated operator handled calls for small bills. Call in, get an IVR, get a credit.

Phone company caught on and limited credits to $7 per month, every other month.

Customers started crediting <$7...

And on and in...cat and mouse.

Then, few realized you only had to pay 91% of the past due balance to not get shut off..

Others finally realized that if your account gets associated with a elected federal official or a PUC complaint you account will never get treated for collections.

\--- Another simple one: having to press "0" 3 times to get to an agent on some IVRs..

<comment><USER15> Say "agent" has always gotten me a real person when the 0 or the */# buttons don't work.

<comment><USER16> "operator operator fuck fuck fuck" usually works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The first guy to log back in (or the guy who doesn't log off at all) wins the game to the detriment of the others, limiting the extent of this practice.

You can't have a successful oligopoly when there's no barrier to entry.

<comment><USER18> It takes more than one ride dispatch to quell the surge. I've watched bar/club closings stay in surge for 30 minutes while cars stream in to pick up riders. I personally have given 5 surge rides in a row, albeit short rides, just by picking up at a particular hot spot, getting a local, drop them off, go offline, return to hot spot, wash, rinse, repeat.

<comment><USER19> > go offline

So you're priming the surge pump, so to speak, since you know where the ride requests will be anyway.

<comment><USER18> Actually it's the opposite. When I drop off outside of the surge zone and go back to that zone to make a pickup inside, that helps quell the surge in that hot spot. I've never noticed surging in the neighborhoods I just left when I go back online. If I stayed online in the neighborhoods, I would likely get dispatched around the drop off point, prolonging the surge at the bar.

<comment><USER19> Ahhh I see.

So I notice your username, and I'm wondering; are you both a developer and an Uber driver? Are you practicing both jobs at a time?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sounds like a nice little loophole the drivers found to make a few extra bucks. It's always interesting to me when people find little tricks they can do the bend an algo their direction.

This reminds me a lot of the LinkedIn algo hacks that's driving me nuts right now. If you post super long form, cheesy, generic paragraphs of text with no links/visuals - you get massive exposure. The result has been superficial posts filling up my feed talking about who knows what.

Much like the nuisance of a pricing surge on Uber, these algo hacks can be a real pain.

<comment><USER21> lol, looks like two can play at that game...

"Separate research at Northeastern University has previously found passengers can game surge pricing with simple tricks such as waiting five minutes or crossing the road."

I know I've waited out twenty minutes or so to bypass the surge or at least dampen the surge to a rate I was comfortable with. Sort of becomes an auction experience at that point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So, they are forming an algorithmic flash union? Nice...

</comment><comment><USER23> I am currently talking with Warren Mosler about implementing Unconditional Basic Income in local communities (Hi @sama! :)

Cartels is the main danger with unconditional basic income. If you make sure everyone can eat, you create a moral hazard, where the insured are not sensitive to price anymore. Having said that, we already have means-tested welfare and food stamps, and cartels of fruit stores don't spontaneously appear everywhere. However, they may appear in food deserts and other places where there aren't a lot of participants. Competition is the only factor I can think of to combat this. But in some areas with few participants, this collusion can ultimately happen.

And then of course there is this result: [https://www.arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798v2](https://www.arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798v2)

Does anyone here have constructive thoughts on how to overcome this problem? Price controls and collective bargaining via single payer is all I can think of besides competition.

<comment><USER24> Competition in this case is really a proxy for choice. UBI should rationally be about promoting the ability for consumers to choose how to spend money, rather than being constrained to have no choices due to lack of resource. to solve the problem you are describing, people still need to have the self- interest to make good decisions, and the willingness to carry them out.

If consumers won't shop around, or make price sensitive decisions, then the market for the good in question becomes price insensitive. But, I think UBI is attractive primarily because it doesn't seek to tell people how to spend their money, or tell them what the right choices are. As an alternative to welfare, it should allow consumer preferences to play a greater part in the market.

<comment><USER23> The problem with UBI versus, let's say, single payer, is that _buyers compete_ and therefore drive up price. In short they "defect" from the price the other buyers pay.

Think about _patio_ and his posts in the past about increasing your rates. That's how it happens.

When you have insurance, then the buyer and seller can join forces to raise prices - that's called a moral hazard.

<comment><USER24> buyers competing is OK, though, right? I was under the impression that the justification for UBI was to attack the ability to pay, which some people lack, rather than the outcome of what they pay for.

The "problem" that UBI has vs single payer is that it is not creating a command economy, but leveling the playing field in a capitalist one. If you want a single payer, you don't want a UBI, you want communism. If you want UBI, you are OK with market forces, but are using a single lever to attempt to correct for a market failure in the most "libertarian" way possible.

The only way single payer really succeeds is if you curtail consumer choice in order to achieve efficiency in what you buy - the single payer doesn't understand all the possibilities in the market. This is maybe a reasonable thing to do in sub-markets, like prescription medication, but is not such a great idea if you do it to the entire market.

If all buyers buy the same thing naturally, the price will go up, yes, but in the long run, production should also go up. If you just put a price control on it, there will always be a short supply, and too much unmet demand, even if the price for those who do manage to get the good is a great deal.

<comment><USER23> Not really.

Communism is more than just "to everyone according to his need". It is also "from everyone according to his ability." And it talks about collective ownership of the means of production, and other stuff. To a great extent, the public stock market is collective ownership of corporations, which is far better than what Marx had in mind.

BUT

This is not about labels. This is about designing systems that work, vs systems that have major issues.

The major issue with UBI is inflation. There is no way around it. Everyone gets X every day. This X is spent into the economy, primarily on necessities. They are not sensitive to price increases because X is indexed to inflation, otherwise what's the point?

So, stores raise prices and people go ahead and pay anyway. And so every sector competes with every other to raise prices before the other sector takes more of the UBI money than they do.

It is a moral hazard.

Now, with single payer systems, the doctor has a choice: accept Medicare, with the prices it offers, or not. It's attractive to accept Medicare because you get a lot of patients who would otherwise not pay you.

This DOES NOT MEAN the consumer can't choose the doctor, school, or anything else. It just means there is collective bargaining for prices.

And btw you benefit from this all the time. Look at Amazon squeezing publishers - stories on HN all the time about this. Or Apple's App Store having rules for developers. Or Google's rules for web publishers, making them make responsive sites. And so on.

Libertarians think "the government" is just one entity. But every organization has a management structure. Eventually we may have decentralized protocols like scuttlebutt etc. that change this paradigm. But for now, we have organizations all over the place and when most consumers are on Facebook, etc. they do in fact squeeze publishers.

<comment><USER24> I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but, IMO UBI is not a moral hazard generator. Just because you get the money doesn't incentivize you to not care about prices. It may make you less sensitive to prices, but it will need to be budgeted nonetheless. If it were infinite UBI, then yes, a free source of infinite money would create a situation where buyers are shielded from rising prices and thus don't care about them.

UBI is NOT insurance, though, and so it is difficult to argue that a limited income, even if free, creates a moral hazard that would truly cause people to no longer budget for things, any more than a salary makes you price insensitive. The quantity of the UBI seems to be the relevant factor, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I remember dealing with the emergency IT issues that popped up with our NYC offices after hurricane Sandy wrought havoc upon much of lower Manhattan's power grid. We were lights out for at least three days. Had to take lots of taxis to move hardware to places with electricity. Even if we wanted to be creative, the subway was certainly not a transportation option and foot was wight prohibitive. The pickup rules for taxi's were suspended during this emergency period. Taxis could pickup fares mid-ride, turn down any rider going to a undesirable destination, & charge whatever they thought they could get. Lucky for me, despite all other storm-born chaos, I was in a sweet spot for where taxis were more than happy to drive. Even so, seeing the number of people who were turned down for their destinations or who in turn declined a ride because of the driver chosen price hike was fascinating; a sort of real- time, impromptu emergent market in infancy rapidly growing into maturity.

So not to say that these ride share services have moved to remove all these kinds of consumer protections that clearly were quickly dropped and exploited once they were removed due to the state of emergency but to a large extent, I feel like I had the chance to experience the larger forces of gamification that would happen if these protections were removed and circumstances were ripe for profit. Overall I am very happy with the changes ride sharing services have brought to supplement transportation options but there are certainly a lot more of these bumps and kinks to be worked out if these businesses hope to avoid a wave of government regulation.

</comment><comment><USER26> Don't need to do much research. Just read the Uber driver fora. They talk about it openly.

Still, even with a huge surge, Uber is 1/2 to 1/10th the price of a cab in my city.

<comment><USER27> _> Still, even with a huge surge, Uber is 1/2 to 1/10th the price of a cab in my city._

This summarizes why the model would continue to work. It's similar to low-cost airlines: most of us hate them, but most of us still use them.

<comment><USER28> Main difference being uber is literally the same experience compared to a regular cab (most of the time), whereas a low cost airline is horribly uncomfortable (read: spirit) and charges for everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is as economically rational as surge pricing itself.

</comment><comment><USER30> It seems to me this happens more frequently when the employer / employee relationship is perceived to be adversarial by the employee.

<comment><USER31> This. As soon as you have an adversarial relationship between buyer/seller (of any good, not just labor) all the bad behaviors come out.

A prime example of this is the airlines. Southwest and Virgin have somehow convinced staff and passengers to be polite to each other, so boarding and other things go smoothly. The same flight for the same price on United or American is a mess of elbowing and passive agressiveness.

<comment><USER32> Passive "aggression".

Also, would this be mostly BigCo vs SmallCo culture difference? United and American are kinda massive ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Price hacking is the new growth hacking, these drivers are truly disrupting a regulatory regime that limits their freedom.

</comment><comment><USER34> A simple solution to this would be to simply limit the number of times one can log in and out per day to something reasonable, or to place limits on the frequency etc.

<comment><USER35> If you ask Uber drivers if they enjoy it, the #1 thing you'll hear is "it's flexible." They're willing to put up with all the other bullshit -- the low pay, the lack of benefits -- for the feeling of control. Chip away at that and bad things will happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> How is this unethical? This is the exact point of these marketplaces - <USER3> drivers are saying "I won't accept a fare at these levels", Uber is responding by raising the price (and it's pretty transparent to consumers - The whole point of "surge pricing" is to incentivize drivers that would otherwise not be on the road). The multiplier framework is pretty clear upfront when you're paying more.

This sounds like a fix to one of my major complaints about Uber. The prices are _too low_. I like cheap rides, but I also like knowing that the people who are giving me rides (and providing me services, selling me goods, making those goods, etc) are making living wages.

And, to some level - This is collective bargaining. This is precisely what Unionists want, without all of the mess involved in actual unions. The drivers are collectively demanding higher wages, and Uber is responding.

On the other hand: There's a good reason we're seeing this pushback. Uber is a shitty, predatory company, and has relentlessly worked to drive down driver wages well beyond sustainable rates. (It's also a shitty company to it's full time employees, to which I will attest.)

</comment><comment><USER37> Yup. Last week I left a Dodgers game in about the eighth inning, and there was a huge parking lot full of Ubers and tons of people were standing around waiting but couldn't find drivers. The drivers wait until the game ends and the masses exit so that the real surge pricing kicks in.

<comment><USER38> I wonder what, if any, ways are there to counter this kind of behaviour?

<comment><USER39> Driving for Lyft/Uber in traffic jams is economically unrewarding, because the fee schedule is tilted towards per-distance-unit and the per-minute fees are a pittance. Raising the per-minute fees would incentivize drivers to take fares which are currently not worthwhile rather than wait for surge pricing.

However, drivers do not set the per-minute pricing -- that's the rideshare company's prerogative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm somewhat surprised no app has popped up to be the driver private peer to peer network. For chat, news, stats, and automating things like this.

<comment><USER41> Traditional means of communication seem to be sufficient, between driver forums and whatsapp groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Surge pricing is technologically archaic, and really has been since the start. Uber should be running instant automated auctions like stock market and webads do.

</comment><comment><USER42> I use Uber pass fairly regular on my commute to work. One other minor unrelated thing I have seen is if the commute is within < 1-2 miles the drive ends up giving you a bad rating (not that ratings matter to me) but uber has no way to screen this fake rating. I made sure I was at the pick up point well before the car arrived, and minded my own business throughout the ride.

On talking to couple of drivers on a few occasions they confessed that they do this to filter out folks asking for lower mile rides!!

edit: This is obviously not in high uber/lyft density zone like a downtown SF where one can assume most of the rides endup being in the 2 mile radius.

<comment><USER43> It should be pretty easy to filter out, given that there will be a very strong correlation between length of the drive and rating.

Passenger rating does matter when it comes to how fast you are getting your ride.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I suspect this happens in London. I always take a "Gett" (fixed price black cab) if so, and it's usually the same price / cheaper and they know how to drive.

</comment><comment><USER45> Uber Drivers in India have been doing this since 2015.

<comment><USER46> What did Uber in India do about it? Does it affect the prices that much and frequently?

<comment><USER47> Why would Uber do anything about it? Its in Uber's interests to not solve it. They get more money no? Same with its competitor in India, Ola.

<comment><USER48> This will be beneficial up to some point in the future, when riders decide to boycott Uber.

<comment><USER47> Well, this driver behavior will exist in all platforms and won't be in any platform's interest to solve it. Be it Uber, Lyft, Ola, Grab etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I saw scrawled on the wall in one of the port-a-potties in the LAX TNC lot, "No Surge, No Drive".

Uber went on a campaign of hiring cabbies. I guess the fact that cabbies congregate and organize completely eluded Uber management.

<comment><USER49> Not to mention, cabbies are often socially, ethnically, and even often genetically connected with each other, making the penalties for noncompliance high. If you're spotted driving when you're supposed to be boycotting for a surge, you may find yourself getting dirty looks from your roommates, your friends, and even your family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Uber is such a hot mess - with everything - it's fascinating to watch it all.

</comment><comment><USER51> Uber is being disputed by what sounds like the Uber of unionizing. Ohh the irony.

</comment><comment><USER52> This sounds a good control systems approach that provides drivers with an indirect way to influence pricing. If Uber decides to 'out' cheaters somehow, then I'd worry about coercion by other drivers.

</comment><comment><USER53> Good for them. Someone should build an app they can run that automatically logs them in and out to maximize pricing.

Though I imagine it wouldn't be hard for Uber to implement some basic security to thwart it.

<comment><USER54> And if prices are high, customers will seek alternatives. So it could backfire.

Also, this practice is illegal as it amounts to price fixing/collision. These are all independent businesses conspiring to raise prices. These aren't employees of the same company – they are independent contractors which means they are separate businuess entities from each other which means they are committing a crime.

Collusion is a crime and that's exactly what these separate business entities (who happen to have Uber as a customer) are doing.

<comment><USER54> To the down voters.. is this not collusion? We are all welcome to our own opinions, but facts are what they are: businesses conspiring to force prices higher is the very diffenition of collusion. The size of the entity makes no difference under the law.

<comment><USER39> I'm not a downvoter, but I see your analysis as extremely uncharitable to drivers. If bringing down the weight of the justice system on individual drivers is a logical consequence of structuring rideshare as individual businesses, that argues for reclassifying them as employees.

EDIT: Full disclosure -- I drive for Lyft part-time. I have not participated in the gaming described in this article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The article implies that this is an active, coordinated effort; but I have to wonder if any of this is/could be an emergent phenomenon based on the existence of the surge pricing algorithm.

<comment><USER56> I think some of the surge times are built in. At WDW it's on the dot when the parks close. There will be tons of drivers on the map too. Uber (and Lyft) know that a all the people they shuttled in for cheap in the morning will need a ride home and didn't plan an alternative.

<comment><USER57> I suspect it's less hard-coded and more a case of the algorithm realizing that there's a huge influx of riders every day at X location at Y time, and just auto-surges until there are a number of days without said influx. It's important to build a surging algorithm this way, as otherwise you'll have an awkward period of low prices with high demand that ends up losing you money in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Take one or two stars off the rating of the trip depending on the amount of the surcharge. That seems to be the only way to fight back as a consumer.

</comment><comment><USER59> Doesn't uber itself game the surge pricing? That is, they'll show you surge prices more often if you have shown a tendency to accept them.

<comment><USER60> I haven't seen any proof but it seems like Lyft does this. I almost never accept surge prices and I absolutely will never accept anything beyond 1.5x. Often if I leave the app open or check back 30 seconds later it will lower the surge rate.

It makes sense if you think about it: giving people who won't pay surge prices a ride anyway makes drivers scarcer for those who will pay, raising surge prices even further.

I'm pretty sure that surge pricing outside a narrow range will eventually be made illegal. It makes too many people too angry and they'd rather get on a car waiting list than see a 3x price. You can argue the economics all you like but people are irrational.

<comment><USER16> Drivers are liquidity providers. If you are willing to wait, you can wait for a lower price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't really buy Uber's denial. They can profit from this; knowing their ethical framework, you'd think they're encourage it.

</comment><comment><USER61> When it happened to me I immediately filed complaint asking for a refund, and they issued it very quickly with an apology.

</comment><comment><USER62> Uber drivers are just trying to mimic the sort of behavior the company they "work" for is so well known for.

</comment><comment><USER63> _edit_ Supporting comment apparently wasn't appreciated. No delete button.

<comment><USER54> It's voluntary. If it becomes unprofitable, drivers leave. If they lose money, they won't do it.

They give a share to Uber because Uber is their lead generation. Many businesses give a share of their money to Google because Google brings them business.

An Uber driver can market their own business and keep all the money if they want just like a business could go out and market without using AdWords.

If you are unhappy with the pay Uber drivers make, you are welcome to pay whatever you want. It's called a tip. Hand the driver cash for whatever amount you think compensates for the "exploitation" you imply (and are enabling by your own admission.) Otherwise, choose another transportation option and the market will respond.

I rarely hear anti-Uber people demand that supermarkets charge more for tomatoes despite those that pick tomatoes working in extremely tough conditions for low pay. I used to drive a taxi for a summer and I know it's a non-stop hustle and not the best job, but I was at least in an air conditioned car listening to the radio all day and not out in the fields picking fruits and vegetables. It ended up being a low profit pursuit, so I ended up moving on to something else.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for people that do jobs like Uber because they, with some moderate ambition, could improve their lot – they already own a car, they could make deals with local companies that send lots of people to airports, for example. They could work on building an actual business while they pay the bills with their Uber income – just as an example. Still other drivers might start a mobile car wash service for other Uber drivers, etc. There are plenty of ways to evolve past depending on Uber as one's sole income. But most people aren't ambitious at all – they just want to just do what they're told and collect a check no matter how meager. Other drivers use Uber for extra income or it's a transitional job.

Any driver thinking they will make a career out of Uber is a fool. If they don't like the conditions, they should be working hard and to create something of their own. It doesn't take much money, but it takes ambition.

<comment><USER39> > But most people aren't ambitious at all

It also takes sufficient life-situation stability, good health, and so on. Shaming people for lacking "ambition" is neither universally appropriate nor universally effective.

EDIT: I didn't originally upvote the parent comment, but I now have. I think there's a very interesting debate to be had when we consider individuals as economic actors. Disadvantaging individual participants in the "gig economy" too aggressively (e.g. by prosecuting Uber drivers for collusion) forces us towards solutions like unionization by dividing us into privileged capital and downtrodden labor. I'd like to talk more about we might empower individual actors (e.g. by improving the social "safety net" and making the job market more fluid).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Might be a coincidence, but lately I've noticed the same thing in Russia.

</comment><comment><USER64> As the price for an Uber increases, the number of people who want a ride will decrease, resulting in less business for the drivers.</comment>


Chris Martenson presents The Crash Course [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7E8A774DA8435EEB

<comment><USER2> The first two clips are a prolonged throat-clearing from a guy who makes no effort to disguise that he is reading. Maybe eventually he recites an argument for us, meanwhile the visuals are a yawner.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What do you think, is this guy mostly just selling fear, or should we be _very_ worried?

<comment><USER3> Anyone (and there are many) who says that we're definitely screwed shouldn't be listened to, and those who say we'll definitely be fine are the same. No one knows. One thing he hasn't factored in is that technology is on that same sort of curve and is working in our favor.

Buckminster Fuller: "We are blessed with technology that would be indescribable to our forefathers. We have the wherewithal, the know-it-all, to feed everybody, clothe everybody, and give every human on Earth a chance. We know now what we could never have known before-that we now have the option for all humanity to make it successfully on this planet in this lifetime. Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment."

<comment><AUTHOR> Isn't the "in between" -choice just as likely as the other two? Since no one knows, I can't see why we shouldn't listen to all opinions.

Unfortunately technology can't save us from our whole economy collapsing, were that to happen.</comment></comment></comment>


Java8 performance – No such thing as a free lunch - <AUTHOR> http://www.rationaljava.com/2015/01/java8-sorting-performance-pitfall.html

<comment><AUTHOR> FYI I will be publishing an update to this post (hopefully this week) going through in detail the causes of this performance issues.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please see my update to this post: [http://www.rationaljava.com/2015/01/java8-lambdas-sorting- pe...](http://www.rationaljava.com/2015/01/java8-lambdas-sorting- performance.html)</comment></comment>


Why Charcoal? in 100 lines or less or more - <AUTHOR> http://charcoal-lang.org/short_version.html <comment><AUTHOR> From: [http://charcoal-lang.org/index.html](http://charcoal- lang.org/index.html)

Excerpt:

"Charcoal is a programming language project. Its defining characteristics are:

o Charcoal is a C dialect

o Mostly source-compatible with C

o Calling C from Charcoal and vice-versa works with minimal fuss

o Follows the "C philosophy"

o Charcoal makes the design and implementation of interactive/ reactive/ asynchronous/ concurrent software more accessible to application programmers"</comment>


Researcher who exploits bug in Starbucks gift cards gets rebuke, not love - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/05/researcher-who-exploits-bug-in-starbucks-gift-cards-gets-rebuke-not-love/

<comment><USER2> White hat security has got to be one of the most important but thankless fields in computer science today.

At best, there are bug bounties that may or may not be worth it depending on the severity of what you find and how many hours you poured into it.

Frequently, you get shit like this where the threat of imprisonment is very real (not that I think anything will come of this because it would be a PR nightmare, but the threat still looms).

And of course, at worst, we all can read about what happened to weev (admittedly exacerbated by him being a complete tool).

</comment><comment><USER3> The blog post by Egor describing the exploit: [http://sakurity.com/blog/2015/05/21/starbucks.html](http://sakurity.com/blog/2015/05/21/starbucks.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> My problem is this line: "As a professional penetration tester, Homakov knows better than most people that hackers should never access someone else's computer network or account without explicit permission."

He did neither of this. He used forms that Starbucks had in place (which they expect customers to use).

</comment><comment><USER5> > But Homakov seems to act as if he had some special ethical and legal right > to make the fraudulent purchase, even though Starbucks had never asked for > his security services.

I don't get why Ars is harsh against him. $1.70 is a grand scheme of things is nothing. Even if he was using it for x10 more without paying it back, it's still nothing.

<comment><USER6> From my own experience, actually making the purchase is likely to be perceived negatively. He had already successfully demonstrated the race condition allowing the transfer, so he had enough to clearly make his point. That stated, were I in Starbucks' position I'd lead with a big "thank you" before explaining the liabilities and why he shouldn't go so far to make his point in the future.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I should state that my team has interacted with Homakov on a number of Chrome vulnerability reports. In my experience he's very sharp, he finds interesting bugs, and my impression is that he's generally trying to do the right thing. However, I can definitely see how his communication style might not come across very well, particularly to a security team that's not used to dealing with the security research community.</comment></comment>


YouTube stars heading for burnout - cirrus-clouds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/08/youtube-stars-burnout-fun-bleak-stressed <comment><AUTHOR> As stupid as this is going to sound, I think about this quite a bit in terms of writing a blog. I've wanted to do it for a long time and in the past people have been very kind and supportive of my writing. However, when I think about the reality of what it takes to make a successful blog, I get very nervous about it.

I mean, it's dumb because the chances of writing a successful blog is next to nil. And the way to exit the scene is easy: stop writing content. But it's the path that worries me. You need to write a lot of relevant content -- almost certainly more content than you can reasonably think about critically. You will be judged on that content. If you make a mistake or change your mind, then you can be treated very harshly. It seems that the masses have this binary view of their celebrities: genius or moron. The more popular you get, the more people have you in their sights aiming to plonk you firmly in the latter category.

For a long time, I've spent ridiculous amounts of time writing in safe havens like HN comment sections: because I truly love writing. I like thinking about stuff and breaking it down. I like explaining the insights that I find. And most of all, I like the fact that _somebody reads what I write_. I like thinking that I've connected with somebody else who I don't even know.

I seem to remember a set of rules for writers by Stephen King (although my recollection doesn't seem to match what Google returns to me). In one of them he says to prepare yourself for an unbelievable amount of criticism. It's this that worries me the most. I don't mind criticism, per se, but I don't want to have to deal with a reputation based on ideas formed from my prose.

"He's the dufus who believes that unit tests shouldn't test requirements. What a moron," is fine when I'm dealing with people who know me. It's down right terrifying when dealing with people who are potentially going to interview me for a job :-) A slight miscalculation in how you describe something, a popular misconception arising from rumours of your writing, or even just having a derpy day because you didn't think it through before you put pen to paper... And suddenly, you are the moron in the eyes of millions.

Like I said, it's putting the cart before the horse by a long, long way, but it still stops me from writing, which is a massive shame. Somehow I must overcome it (advice is welcome, BTW!)

<comment> stone-monkey Why not write under a pseudonym? If you don't want people to associate you with every little detail of your writing, the easiest thing to do is to disassociate your writing identity with your offline identity.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good idea :-). It never even occurred to me...

<comment><USER2> Although when you get successful the amount of effort devoted to breaking your pseudonym increases. We lost several UK police bloggers to this and there was a nasty campaign by the press against Brooke Magnanti.

<comment><USER3> Yep, maintaining your secrecy is hard.

As an individual you have hundreds of different patters that define who you are. Even the market you post to can geographically limit the location you are in. Use an uncommon, but correct, spelling of a word?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vanilla-almond The BBC made a brilliant spoof series on becoming a YouTube vlogger called 'Pls Like'. The whole thing is available on YouTube to watch (not geo-blocked as far I know). It's 6 episodes of 15 mins each.

No matter which country you're from, you'll recognise all the vlogger types in the series: the lifestyle vlogger, the fashion vlogger, the prankster etc. It actually touches on a lot of the issues in the Guardian article: the need for views, the pressure to make content 'viral', sponsored content, rivalry between vloggers. It's all done with a lot of humour while highlighting these issues.

I thoroughly recommend it (and in case you are wondering, the vloggers are all actors, not real vloggers):

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL64ScZt2I7wFF538Kn0TR...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL64ScZt2I7wFF538Kn0TRqDyv2TbNuemk)

<comment><USER4> pretty damn well made series!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I respect people who have the ability to entertain thousands of viewers, I really do. At the same time I'm really happy that wasn't even an option when I was young. I'm sure I would have spent even more time playing video games if esports, twitch and YouTube had been a thing in the 90ies.

I know, I know, not everyone is alike, but at age 35 I'm really happy that my job involves serious adult challenges, and that my success in life isn't depending on thousands of teenagers pushing a like button.

<comment><USER6> > my success in life isn't depending on thousands of teenagers pushing a like > button

In a certain sense, though, most serious adult business still boils down to people seeing an ad, installing an app, buying a product, attracting investors, or teenagers clicking a like button.

Edit: The YouTubers who go on to do it at a more serious capacity will also learn valuable first-hand lessons in dealing with partnerships, sponsors, public relations, release cycles, etc. All of which are useful depending on what it is that you want to do in your career.

<comment><USER7> >In a certain sense, though, most serious adult business still boils down to people seeing an ad, installing an app, buying a product, attracting investors, or teenagers clicking a like button.

I mean, yes, I'm part of the machine, and the machine does sell advertising. But I'm a little cog in a big machine, and there are a lot of other cogs between me and the teenagers and their like buttons.

A long time ago, I wrote a technical book. One of the weirdest things to me was just how much reading the amazon reviews hurt. Like, they were mostly positive, but the negative ones, even negative reviews that as a buyer I would dismiss as 'clearly nutso' really hurt in a deeply irrational way.

At my dayjob? not only is it someone else's job to worry about that sort of thing, the volume involved would make it almost impossible for me to consume the feedback in anything other than a statistically sampled sort of way, even if it _was_ my job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The neoliberal condition is in part characterized by the entrepreneurialization of everything, the penetration of Michel Foucault's _homo economicus_ (entrepreneur of the self) into more and more spheres of production, consumption, and everyday life. Increasingly, you're an "entrepreneur" no matter what, whether you're a food truck owner, a freelance designer, an Uber driver, an Airbnb host, a YouTube star. Entrepreneur means a blurring of boundaries, working from home, homing from work.

In my possibly-naive opinion, it wouldn't be such a problem, if only we didn't tie value and self-worth so much on work, both culturally and politically. This entrepreneurialization goes hand-in-hand with the condition of _precarity_ , feeling like you _have_ to work your ass off, have to stay at the top of your game, to keep making a living, because you have no other way to live. It is incredibly dangerous, and it's increasingly defining us, the millennial and post-millennial generations.

<comment><USER9> > _This entrepreneurialization goes hand-in-hand with the condition of > precarity, feeling like you have to work your ass off, have to stay at the > top of your game, to keep making a living, because you have no other way to > live._

It's more of a precarization than an entrepreneurialization.

An entrepreneur has bigger stakes but also a bigger payoff than being paid to ride their car as an Uber for example.

<comment><USER8> I would really say that they're different sides of the same coin. I also wouldn't say that an entrepreneur necessarily has noticeably bigger payoff. It might be true in tech, but not necessarily for the majority of small businesses.

I can't recall off the top of my head which one, but I remember seeing a study that showed that a significant amount of small business owners in the US did so _just_ to get to do what they want for a living. (Again, why the "for a living"?)

Entrepreneurialism, in a lot of cases, is a new kind of wage slavery. The precarity is the most easily exploited (by rideshare services, freelance agencies, marketplace platforms, among others) to coax people into positions without security or benefits.

<comment><USER3> For a living probably means something else now than the past.

Past: For a living - so I don't starve to death.

Now: For a living - I want the perceived freedom in choice of work that fits my lifestyle.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, we're not happy to just have the fire, speak in languages, and live in caves either.

We don't compare ourselves with the early humans before they discovered those things and feel lucky.

And neither those that starved to death did.

What constitutes "a living" is always relative.

That said, you can very much still starve and get sick and homeless to death in modern rich societies...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my experience the frustrating part about YouTube is when the crowd wants content that you're not interested in making.

For instance, I've made a few videos about building clusters from Raspberry Pi's, which I did just for kicks and to have something to play around with. They get more attention than my (imo more interesting) videos about programming or various other electronics topics, to the point that it dwarfs my other views.

So I have to choose between disappointing the majority of my subscribers or making content that I don't actually enjoy or stand by just for the views.

PS: I also learned very quickly that the YouTube comments section is chaotic and is not a recommended place for someone looking for thoughtful critique on their material.

<comment><USER10> _" I also learned very quickly that the YouTube comments section is chaotic and is not a recommended place for someone looking for thoughtful critique on their material."_

YouTube's comments are some of the absolute worst I've seen on the web. It's interesting that YouTube has made no effective efforts to improve their quality.

You'd think the site as a whole could benefit tremendously from quality comments, but apparently that is not a priority.

<comment><USER11> > It's interesting that YouTube has made no effective efforts to improve their > quality. //

You imply it, but it's worth noting that they have made efforts but failed/stopped. Google can't/won't fix it. I suspect as someone else mentioned they realised that fixing comment quality reduces "engagement"; like tabloid news.

<comment><USER12> > _fixing comment quality reduces "engagement"_

I'll admit to occasionally scrolling through the comments looking for the batshit crazy ones, if only because they tend to be funny and interesting in the totally unexpected way they managed to get offended about something.

<comment><USER13> It's like laughing at the badguys in pro wrestling

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have an YouTube channel, mostly for personal stuff. I did some effort to record some videos about several subjects, none had more than a hundred viewers. Then, in a sudden, a very shaky and short video with a Mallet steam locomotive punctured the Algorithm Wall and had thousands of views per day... I was even making $20/mo off YouTube until the early 2018 changes took place.

And the fact is, divisive content is king these days. Nobody, humans or algorithms, are interested in balanced opinions these days.

<comment><USER15> How many of the Nazis and other super divisive youtubers do you think are faking it or hamming it up for clicks? I do sometimes wonder "do these people actually believe this crap?" Same goes for totally outlandish conspiracy theories.

Controversy has always sold, but never before has the feedback loop been so tight.

<comment><USER16> Not believing what you speak is a huge enthusiasm killer, and enthusiasm is most of what makes a good video. I'd guess almost all of the people with growing channels believe what they speak, and anyone on the fence might even subconsciously start believe what their audience wants.

<comment><USER17> Except I can fake enthusiasm easily. I don't because it's deceptive. I feel like I am lying to someone when I fake enthusiasm. Doesn't go over all that well in most settings, since most people do fake it.

<comment><USER18> I think OP means more personal enthusiasm, as in being driven to make videos at all. No benefit in being able to fake a smile if you never end up recording yourself in the first place.

...at the same time though, a ton of money and attention might be enough to get over making personally uninteresting content. I guess that's pretty much how careers are for most people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've unwittingly enjoyed Matt Lee's content on 'Shut Up and Sit Down', a board game review channel. I've always found him, and his colleagues, really good at what they do and find it professional.

I didn't know about Matt's background on Youtube, but a bit of Googling and I found he's had a really rough ride. As well as the stress and health problems others have mentioned, his wife also developed cancer a few years ago and was very close to dying.

All the while he still manages to produce witty, engaging content for a fickle audience. Honestly, the guy deserves a bit more respect for his craft than the comments in this thread are giving.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't find this surprising. When I started podcasting in 2005, even doing a weekly 'cast with my friend and co-host was a lot of work. We also had day jobs. But the pressure to create content was still there. These full time youtubers must feel in 100x more, particularly if they have Patreon people to keep happy. We derived no income from our show, and in fact it cost us money to produce.

In some ways I wish some of these monetizing platforms existed when we were around. It would have been fun to see if we could have gone anywhere with it. But then we might have succumb to these issues, as well.

I guess it all comes back to "Be careful what you wish for..."

<comment><USER21> > they have Patreon people to keep happy

Reminds me of when I briefly accepted donations from users of my forum. Suddenly it was like my life was beholden to people that had once given me $5. At least when they'd given me $0, it was pretty straightforward to dismiss their complaints and they'd looked silly when they'd demanded more of my free time. But once they gave >$0, the water got murky.

I ended up refunding everyone a few months later and I generally roll my eyes when I see posts like "um why not just take donations?" on HN.

It's just not no-strings-attached money like people seem to think it is. It's more akin to selling a service for peanuts, it rears the same issues.

<comment><USER22> This makes me think of how moot (creator of 4chan) was against receiving donations from 4chan users, presumably because of this type of issue. He later started selling "4chan passes" which added certain specific features to the site. I think that was a very clever way to go about it: the people who bought them couldn't demand moot's attention. They got a very specific thing out of their money and everyone knew that.

Considering these cases, I think it makes sense to make sure that whenever one accepts donations, they make it very explicit what the donator can rightfully expect. That could be as little as a token set of extra features, a badge on their user profile, or just warm fuzzy feelings without extra attention.

<comment><USER23> Perhaps a different mentality for donations helps too. People who solicit donations should somehow communicate that you are not buying a service of some kind, they are _donating_ to you, so you're free to take the money and do whatever. It's a strange thing however when people donate a pittance (five dollars or ten dollars or something) and then expect so much for it. When you pay five dollars for a coffee, you are at least paying for something. But the word "donation" never seemed to me like it carried any serious commitment on the part of the recipient.

Perhaps the only thing the donor can expect is the recipient is to continue whatever they were doing. Beyond that it's ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article is really relatable. Personal story time. I recently had a mini hit on Reddit where I started a community that's about 2800 people who come to me for marketing tips every day. It's both exhilarating and terrifying. Having a community, making content about my passion, and being able to perform is really all I've ever wanted. On the other hand I'm insanely cognizant of losing it at any time. There is no break and I know even a slight lull can stop it before it ever really even gets close to its potential. God forbid I give bad advice, or someone 1 ups me in the comments and I'm no longer the expert. That combined with the fact that most marketing isn't all that interesting has me increasingly searching for more and more all the time ever cognizant I don't want to bore and lose my audience. I've been mitigating this by filming 3 videos a day and embracing an intentionally raw style, but it still requires daily upkeep in addition to my agency which demands 10 to 12 hours anyways. Don't get me wrong I love it and I'm insanely grateful, but there is a lot of stress that surrounds this sort of thing.

<comment><USER9> I think a lot of the concern for upkeep is simply overblown.

I follow several vloggers, bloggers, etc. Once they've built a basic following, they can do whatever, even disappear for weeks or months, and still have most or all of their followers intact and craving for more content.

I know, because me and tons of others, are waiting for new content from some such people who took huge break times off, and when it appears views always shoot through the roof. And I don't see Subscription counts fall of that much either (e.g. to the point that it makes any difference, e.g. going from 200K to 150K or so). It's easier to just ignore a channel that hasn't posted videos for a while, than to actively unsubscribe (besides, not getting posts is no reason to unsubscribe if you'd still like what they can possibly post in the future).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25>
      Ninja, makes an estimated $500,000 (£384,000) every
      month via live broadcasts of him playing the video
      game Fortnite on Twitch, a service for livestreaming
      video games that is owned by Amazon. Most of Blevins'
      revenue comes from Twitch subscribers or viewers who
      provide one-off donations (often in the hope that he
      will thank them by name "on air").

There is something _fantastically_ wrong about the way internet economies operate. In the same way so many other sub-economies panhandle, in exchange for absolutely nothing.

</comment><comment><USER26> > _Like all YouTubers, Morton also feels the financial pressure of the system, > which typically pays between £1.50 and £3 for every 1,000 views._

Based on this, creators have to be close to the 1 million views per month mark to be making over $24,000 per year.

It's no secret that YouTube is wildly unprofitable, from every angle. In a way, it's a transfer of wealth from AdWords, so our society is paying for YouTube through ads; just mostly not through the ads on YouTube.

<comment><USER27> YouTube is unprofitable if you look at direct compensation alone, if you have even 1M views per year not to mention a month you can find partnerships and sponsorships.

I don't understand why people think YouTube should pay more, the vast majority of YT content doesn't cost anything to create nor does it generate any revenue for YT.

Besides the really large channels the best thing one can do is to run a channel is parallel to their business and in support of it which is what many of the smaller DYI/Maker/Professional/Vocational channels do you run a machine shop you make a few videos per month and you draw more business rather than rely on ad revenue.

<comment><USER26> > _the vast majority of YT content doesn 't cost anything to create_

And does that painfully show. You basically have to build a small TV studio, or invest in computer graphics software and skills, to produce good content on a regular basis. And good writing also. None of these things are free.

And this devalues the time of these independent video producers, They could be producing high value for another business, with appropriate compensation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is an interesting story, definitely worth a click, but isn't it sort of also just the fundamental issues humans face in all pursuits that are based on interest?

I feel like you'd get the same spirit of complaint from a disenchanted musician, actor, chef, or even entrepreneur.

"It's a lot harder than I thought. The market's tastes are fickle, I've got to make stuff to please them instead of things that creatively satisfy me. If I stop relentlessly competing I can't pay my bills"

I'm older than the average youtube star, but I don't begrudge their success or view them as trivial people like a lot of my peers. That said, perhaps it's the _initial_ grand slam success and money that is the aberration (like app store hits at their peak), and the "bad side" is simply a sort of market correction where you've got to do unenjoyable things roughly commensurate with the payoff.

<comment><USER29> Over the last several years I gradually changed from being very salty and grumpy -- "FFS, these goofy kids get to squeal on air and get rich and buy a house I won't likely have at 50, WTF is that!!!" \-- to basically accepting how most of our current world's economy works and I moved to the milder attitude of "hey, if you can make it work then more power to you, and good job!".

I think the only bad thing in this picture is their initial huge success, like you seem to believe as well. This produces very unrealistic future expectations and the cognitive dissonance becomes nigh-impossible to face in the aftermath.

This leads to articles such as this one.

In my eyes everybody should learn to work hard and the value of money but some are skipping these steps with a big initial success and when reality finally kicks in, they are much less prepared to face it.

Sad, but it's part of one's own personal development. Can't be avoided.

<comment><USER30> But what is reality, for whom? For what amount of people? What of those who never hit this "reality" at all? They exist, and a comment like yours is mysteriously never addressed to them, and it's not clear where this personal development would occur or why.

I see this as a good thing. It makes people expect more, demand more, raise issues. Because the issue in the blog is worth raising. Otherwise, they'll just settle for what is. And the is has never been very good.

The cognitive dissonance was from assuming that the world was fair, but you make this mistake as well.

Reality is malleable and changes constantly, one day your core skill is learning how to throw a spear the next it's how to manage computers; it's all rather unreliable and it differs very strongly depending on where you ended up...

<comment><USER29> By "reality" I mostly meant "what is statistically often found almost everywhere" \-- sorry for not clarifying. By saying "when reality sets in" I mean to say "when one day nobody can carry you through life anymore, including your luck from previous phases, and you actually have to work really hard for a fraction of what you barely worked for before".

And yes, reality is maleable. That's both very good and very bad.

As for me assuming the world is fair, definitely not! The world is anything but fair...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I guess any activity that requires repetition becomes bleak sooner or later because brain craves variety. I guess it can be the inner voice telling that by getting obsessed over only one thing, you can miss out the chance to explore other aspects of life. But as it has been said, everything sucks, most of the time we're simply choosing what sucks less.

<comment><USER29> > _I guess any activity that requires repetition becomes bleak sooner or later > because brain craves variety._

You nailed it.

And that's a huge problem for the current economical state of affairs; people start enthusiastically but eventually want to move on. By that time however, they have a family to care for, mortgage where they cannot miss a single installment, are generally tired, and cannot afford to make a decisive U-turn in their lives.

It's extremely saddening, I watched many bright and smiley people turn into grumpy drones because of that tendency. One of the worst things you could see in life. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As with everything else there is always a spectrum and this represents the dark end of the spectrum. I follow a bunch of tech youtubers (like MKBHD) who represent the happy side of the spectrum.

<comment><USER33> The main problem is it's self-managed work. Given lack of advisory and guidance, or the structure of conventional workplaces and school, many people will mismanage their work-life balance. Even with structure I have problems sometimes managing my overall workload and side projects.

It's certainly not Youtube at fault here, but it's definitely a valid issue every independent worker has to face. Discussion and exchanging solutions is a good thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> How is this different than any other prestigious high performance job? Okay great, you busted your ass and you made it to the top, and now you have to bust your ass to stay there. I also don't really think it's fair to attach YouTube to the title. This article can be applied to all social media celebrities in all their various platforms.

</comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if this is specific to YouTube in any way. E.g., I'd stop visiting xkcd if Randall didn't keep uploading regularly. Most open source projects (including mine) turn into GitHub graveyard because we can't provide even the most basic maintenance and support. Lots of traditional-media pop stars have also famously burnt out.

In general, it is hard work to cultivate a proper institution that spreads out the load and makes this sustainable. And the skill for managing that is never really taught anywhere. Most "lone artists" don't even realize it's needed until it's too late. And that's where most of this frustration stems from. Culturally we focus too much on that one "big break", or the "eureka moment".

</comment><comment><USER36> I'd watched a few videos talking about the old-time YouTube content generators in the "Wild West" of the site, compared with the current grind. They tweaked things so it only seems to make sense - monetization-wise - to be a content generator if you're able to keep up with posting high-quality content daily. Myself, I'd want to post great videos that people enjoy, and if the following grows, great! If not, I would just do what I want to do. If something else is more fun, I'll do that. But I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to make YouTube videos a work-from-home paying gig unless you really enjoy whatever content you're generating. And making regular, high-quality videos is a lot of work, not to mention regular, meaningful content that people with engage with. Otherwise, you're just screaming into the void.

<comment><USER37> I don't like how youtubers feel obligated to produce a certain amount of videos per week. I would prefer one or two videos per month with good quality than three or four per week with clickbait titles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Who knew hard work can be hard, this reads less like an actual deep analysis and more like people complaining they need to actually put in work to get paid.

>'invisible' labour such as interacting with fans is 'a major contributor to occupational stress. In many cases it can contribute to PTSD'.

Are you kidding me? they are not fans they are your "customers" or at least your "consumers" public and customer relations are a key part of nearly every business out there that doesn't rely on accidental walk-ins for the majority of their business.

If you can't handle it then hire someone who can or find another business, PTSD? from what? reading fan mail? even if it contains death threats you can't get PTSD from that there is no trauma, what you have here it just a lazy person that realized that omg running a business that serves tens of thousands of people daily is hard.

<comment><USER38> To be fair to the Youtube stars, this is exactly why famous authors and actors have publicity agents. The notion of celebrities interacting with the hoi polloi on a daily basis is a brand-new artifact of the Internet age.

What's happening is that today's celebrities are learning why their predecessors locked themselves away in secluded Hollywood mansions and rode around wearing sunglasses in heavily-tinted limousines.

<comment><USER27> So do "YouTube stars" most of the large channels are run by media companies either established one or ones that was set up to support the channel.

All the people they interviewed are relatively no-body they are small fish if anything their "mistake" wasn't taking it as a business they thought they can record a few videos on their phone edit them in FCP and make a metric ton of money hence the "winning the lottery" analogy that went through the article.

There aren't shortcuts in life people shouldn't expect to get paid for little to no effort put in, and yes if you are reaching 50,000 people by selling yourself you need to be willing to well whore yourself out because you are the product, if you are running a tech channel or something similar then you often run it closer to say how a TV channel would be run with different shows/segments, you can and do hire additional hosts/anchors and eventually build a whole media production group.

But even the "vlog" channels aren't a solo gig all the large ones did a behind the scenes videos which they showed just how many people are involved in producing those videos, if you have a revenue of say $500,000 you can't expect to be able to do on your own, even on half of that you can easily hire multiple people and still make a more than enough money.

Cameramen/crew, editors people to handle PR and out reach can be hired for $50K even with experience and in reality much less especially considering that given the production scope you can afford to hire people straight out of college or even high school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Surprise. It's just a new face on an ancient profession: Entertainment. And it comes with similar challenges.

</comment><comment><USER40> I've noticed a few big YouTubers talking about burnout. Smooth McGroove most recently comes to mind.

</comment><comment> village-idiot Sometimes the most bitter poison is everything you'd ever asked for.

Humans really are terrible at estimating what will make them happy.

<comment><USER29> Well it's all phases, is it not? Who says you will have a perfect idea at 16 about what will make you happy until you die? That's definitely not how humans work.

All of us know people who did U-turns in their lives at 30+. Some even at 50 or 60.

<comment> village-idiot There's that, but some of the research I've read says that humans are really bad at predicting how future events will affect their emotional state, regardless of age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > Divisive content is the king of online media today, and YouTube heavily > boosts anything that riles people up [...]

I look upon this idea skeptically. In my experience, the content delivered to me is as divisive as the videos I've already watched. If someone is getting divisive content, that's probably the content that they _want_ to watch. Is it really up to YouTube to determine if a person has been watching content that's too divisive, like a bartender who cuts off a someone who's had too many drinks?

When I log out of my YouTube account or open YouTube in incognito mode, all I see are viral videos and nothing that's "divisive". For example, the YouTube homepage without being logged in shows prank videos, Rube Goldberg type fascination videos, educational videos, Mexican music, daytime TV crap, SNL skits, and pop music.

So basically, in order to get to the divisive stuff, you have to already be using search queries that will bring one to political commentators.

But then what should be done? If someone is watching a lot of videos by the far left, should the recommended videos proportionally include more videos by right wing commentators? Is this really what people want?

Sorry that this is tangental from the actual point of the article, but I've read of this idea multiple times before and it's always asserted as if it's a matter of fact, but I'm not sure I buy it.

<comment><USER2> I have a saved screenshot of when I was watching gaming videos (XCOM2) and all the recommendations were also XCOM2 videos .. and a live stream of UK far- right rabble-rouser Tommy Robinson.

I suspect (but of course can't prove without secret youtube data) that there's enough of a crossover between gaming and the far right that any gamer will eventually see far right videos, far more likely than they will be shown "far left" videos (these must exist, but I've no idea who they might be?)

<comment><USER42> The YouTube far-right community is much bigger than one might expect. There's a lot of actual fascists on youtube who get a lot of algorithmic promotion, but leftist youtube tends to be smaller and much less extreme - no "far left" by most definitions.

The same tends to be true in most spaces in my experience. Whatever the "far left" is tends to be a poorly defined boogieman, not a cohesive group--almost as if it were the eternal enemy of standard far-right ur-fascist theory!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> _The anxieties are tied up with the relentless nature of their work. Tyler Blevins, AKA Ninja, makes an estimated $500,000 (£384,000) every month via live broadcasts of him playing the video game Fortnite on Twitch, a service for livestreaming video games that is owned by Amazon. Most of Blevins' revenue comes from Twitch subscribers or viewers who provide one-off donations (often in the hope that he will thank them by name "on air"). Blevins recently took to Twitter to complain that he didn't feel he could stop streaming. "Wanna know the struggles of streaming over other jobs?" he wrote, perhaps ill-advisedly for someone with such a stratospheric income. "I left for less than 48 hours and lost 40,000 subscribers on Twitch. I'll be back today… grinding again."_

This fits into the stereotype of Millennials as entitled. He makes 500k a month, but can't get off the hamster wheel? Poor soul.

<comment><USER44> Is that after or before taxes?

<comment><USER45> Before taxes, he has about 100k subs who contribute around $5 each.

Loosing 40k subs is pretty significant, however I am not sure how that is possible in just 2 days. While there is an option to auto renew most twitch subscribers are not automatic, a person is usually watching the stream and chooses to subscribe. When subscription expires they can do so again. Assuming 140k subs are evenly distributed throughout the month the loss from not streaming for 48 hours should be 2/30 * 140k, this comes down to slightly less than 10k. Moreover most of these subs should rejoin once he starts streaming again.

You can see detailed breakdown here: [https://twitchstats.net/subs/ninja](https://twitchstats.net/subs/ninja)

<comment><USER46> > who contribute around $5 each.

Doesn't Twitch take roughly 50% of that?

<comment><USER47> That's the most they take. Higher level partners get a better cut.

If he lost 40k subscribers, that's most likely 40k renewals that didn't happen -- and they're not going to happen until he broadcasts again. It's almost a certainty he didn't lose 40k, many will have renewed once he was on again.

And if 40k subscriptions lapse over 2 days that would seem to imply that he has 600k subscribers. He doesn't. The 40k loss is just sensationalist. He didn't log in the first of the month and probably had a ton of people re-sub on the 3rd when he was back on.

<comment><USER44> After a while, it all starts to sound like sports & business. Are you also a star on Youtube or Twitch? Or do you work in the industry?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Stay strong, the Tech Lead, if you are out there.

<comment><USER49> Are you talking about youtube channel thetechlead?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> "most fun job"? There are many reasons why I don't work as a YouTuber. And I do not wanna be a "star"

<comment><USER51> I'm sure there are tons of people who would say the same thing about whatever it is you do. Different strokes for different folks.

<comment><USER50> Exactly but i don't say: "Software engineering is the most fun job".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> If they feel burnout then they should just stop making videos for awhile or move on to doing something else.

<comment><USER53> > stop making videos for awhile

It has a huge detrimental effect. Each day you take a break can set you back by several. From the article:

>> "I left for less than 48 hours and lost 40,000 subscribers on Twitch. I'll be back today… grinding again."

> move on to doing something else

There's not a clear career path to anything else. Many of them have spent their formative adult years streaming, and transitioning to another career would be incredibly difficult and likely pay significantly less.

Sure, there are the mega-streamers who have (hopefully) saved enough money that they could absorb that gigantic setback, or have enough celebrity that they can transition to something else, but I doubt the majority of them have earned enough to support a major life transition - like, say, going back to school full-time.

This is also one of the problems former professional athletes face, and there are actually a lot of interesting parallels between the two groups. "Broke" is a really interesting watch if you haven't seen it already that is quite eye- opening: [http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=broke](http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=broke)

<comment><USER12> > _There 's not a clear career path to anything else_

If you're making $6 million / year, you have the resources with which to take time off and reconsider your choices.

<comment><USER54> It's a shame that that is the quote they decided to use in the article. But you can ask any Twitch streamer, if you take a vacation expect to lose large amounts of your subscribers.

On YouTube, if you stop posting videos for a while, YouTube will severely punish you in the algorithm. It'll take weeks before your videos start showing back up in user's subscription boxes.

<comment><USER12> > _if you take a vacation expect to lose large amounts of your subscribers_

And if a freelancer takes a vacation, they can expect to lose contract volumes. This is why people form teams, so one person can take a break while other people pick up the slack. If you're making a lot of money, you should be able to take the hit and re-organise in a more sustainable way.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


You Could Learn a Lot from a Quadratic (Part 1) (1998) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/sigcol05.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> Also see the sequels:

[http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/sigcol06.pd...](http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/sigcol06.pdf)

[http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/sigcol08.pd...](http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/sigcol08.pdf)</comment>