Does your detail plan outline exactly what to implement/ lines of code to edit? I found if I get a nice detailed plan that sonnet is good enough to implement. Did you try that before and found fable better at implementing?
Yeah. So the benefit of Fable is that it'll find gaps in the system as well. So logic errors get caught. I have a separate backend and frontend so plumbing issues are also caught by Fable.
Interesting, have you tried fable with making the strict plan though, and seeing if that catches all of logic errors ahead of time, and then just sending sonnet out to make the detailed updates? Or are you finding that by having fable implement it still catches things post detailed plan? So many tests to run and try out, trying to figure out to try out next.
This, I have mine at https://world-playground-deceit.net/ but I don't want to put my real name that visibly on it (a resourceful stalker could get it though).
I fail to understand why people think that YouTube is a charity service. They are a business and act like one, you'd do the same if someone threatens your business.
The problem is that YouTube/google want "le beurre, l’argent du beurre, et le sourire de la crémière".
They want to (and are managing) to distort the openness of the web: they provide free access to a service, the way the web intended to be; but don't want people to use the tools in the way they are meant to be used.
If they want to charge for the service, fine, it's their prerogative but don't blame the users for using the tools as they are meant to be used.
Why don't they stop free aceess? They can, no one is stopping them from doing business that way.
Because they want everything, that's why. When will their "business" stop? What's the end goal?
It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.
>It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.
It is absolutely not free of cost. Google wouldn't be able to sustain if they were not receiving anything in return.
In this exchange, however, you don't know the value you're contributing; there is no clear value exchange: "I'll give you $x.xx for use of such-n-such." Instead you're expected to believe that what they provide you is fair for the value you provide them.
Youtube gets their content free of costs and sometimes they ban that content like these live streams. I think banning something is a pretty decisive form of criticism.
Not from me they don't. If they stopped paying me, I would stop creating content. The same is true for every other successful YouTuber I know who is out there creating high-quality content.
Providing something for free (even if in this case, you do pay in many ways) is not a shield from criticism. You can't compare a free service to no service but instead have to compare it to the possible alternative reality where that particular free service does not exist. This is distinction is especially important for areas where network effects effectively prevent any alternatives from gaining traction.
This was a big problem for me, until one day I sat down and cleaned my inbox. Basically moving the correct things to the correct place and now I don't face this issue.
