How does this cost 9m£? I mean, sure, it was exploratory, but come on, how do you spend that kind of money on sealing some components, adding an alternator and some sensors? What am I missing?
People don't work for free. Industrial-grade items are expensive.
You can't just seal some components. You have to seal those components then conduct rigorous and extensive testing of those components to make sure they're actually sealed. Then you have to document the process.
An alternator on a steam locomotive isn't a little thing you can hold in your hands and get from an auto parts store for next to nothing.
I'm a hardware guy. The number 1 thing software guys don't get about hardware is that everything you do costs a shit-ton of money. You can't just download a hardware IDE, register a hardware domain, and vibe code your way to a hardware startup.
Well, you can, but the technical term for that is "kickstarter scam".
Conversion 2 will be less expensive than 1, conversion 3 will be less expensive than 2, and by the time they get to the 500th conversion it'll be practically cheap.
In my understanding it's a complete ETCS L2 system, so it needs a "Euroradio" for GSM-R, a bunch of redudant sensors for Odometry, a balise transmission module, an interface to the train to interact with the brakes and a central computer with a black box. And I assume everything needs to be certified to reach some level of correctness.
I had the same thought. I'm guessing rigorous and expensive safety certification, a custom designed steam driven turbo and alternator and stripping back and rebuilding the engine carriage? The fact it's got batteries and an alternator and a turbo suggests some stringent requirements.
> The cab was stripped back to bare metal because of the sheer number of new conduits, boxes and equipment and that was the only practical way to do it
And the system has to be homologated, which takes a lot of time to test in a unknown environment.
It turns out UK society wasn't OK with "Sometimes people get decapitated" as the price of this perk, and it also wasn't happy with "Increase the clearance for structure gauge" because that would solve the decapitations but is eye-wateringly expensive in many places or would mean demolishing things society also wanted, like bridges, castles, or other buildings which are too close.
An oligopol often has some kind of moat due to anti competitive behaviour. E.g. the potatoe argument from the article, where McCain makes it hard to buy potatoes from anybody but them as they are part of a packaged deal.
> Then, there is a switch to the most traditional of businesses with the most traditional business models. Who, the author argues, are engaging in price gauging. In the second paragraph he claims that apps cause this inflation
He is saying that the traditional businesses use an app that allows for a legal way of price gauging.
> The last paragraph portraits a stunning lack of economic knowledge, as companies raising prices in line with inflation obviously would not lower prices after the source of the inflation is gone.
The author claims, that these companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for.
>The author claims, that these companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for.
That's just supply and demand? People get mad that when there's an oil shortage, that oil companies raise prices above the cost of production, but they're happy to see oil companies' margin collapse when there's an oil glut.
What supply and demand? The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. The demand has not changed in any material way. And yet the prices have increased, and those increases have far outstripped the increases in the cost of goods sold.
It’s worth noting that, in classical economic theory, the price in a competitive market is set by matching supply and demand, but the price in a monopolistic market is set higher such that the profit (“producer surplus”) is maximized, which harms the buyers (“consumer surplus”) even more than the amount by which the seller benefits. The net loss is called deadweight loss, and one can argue about whether and how government policy should be arranged to minimize deadweight loss.
> The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged.
Those "disruptions" you refer to create periods of "lack of supply" (i.e., less of the goods). That is what the "disruption" is, a temporary reduction in the "supply"
> The demand has not changed in any material way.
True, but, during the period of "temporary reduction in the supply" (i.e., the disruption) Econ 101's supply/demand curve will predict that the price will rise to make the "demand" during the period of limited supply equalize with the new supply level due to the disruption.
What often happens (and you see it most clearly with gasoline prices), is that the price reacts extremely quickly to the supply disruption by increasing fast (seemingly within hours). But then, when the "disruption" clears, and the supply amount returns to normal, the price tends to slowly drift downward (if it drifts downward at all).
Forget about oil for a second. Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal.
I'm not stupid, I understand supply and demand. COVID was 4 years ago. Explain the $8 box of cereal.
> Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal.
Most of the cost of the cereal isn't the cereal. First you're paying for the store. That's real estate costs -- currently excruciating. Property tax and insurance, based on the real estate prices. The store needs heat and light, that's oil and electricity. There are people who work at the store, has your state recently increased its minimum wage? Grocery stores that don't buy advertising have fewer customers and have to amortize these costs over fewer sales, so you either have higher costs per unit because they didn't buy advertising or higher total costs because they did, etc.
The next question you might ask is, why don't they get rid of the store? Ship the cereal to your door. But it's like 8 oz of cereal, you'd get killed on the shipping. To make it work you'd need your whole grocery order to be delivered in one trip.
That could actually be an interesting business model. Instead of "free shipping" encouraging you to buy one item at a time but then the shipping cost is really baked into the item price, have "flat rate shipping" where you pay e.g. $35/order for shipping with no item limit. Then if you're buying what would otherwise be $400 in groceries for $200 by cutting out the retail store, paying the $35 is totally worth it, and you could be adding items to your cart all month for a scheduled monthly delivery.
> First you're paying for the store. That's real estate costs -- currently excruciating. Property tax and insurance, based on the real estate prices. The store needs heat and light, that's oil and electricity. There are people who work at the store, has your state recently increased its minimum wage?
Same box of cereal costs the same in Southern California and South Carolina. South Carolina is cheaper in every way - electricity, rent, insurance, and labor. Same $8 premium cost for a commodity product that costs a dollar or so to land.
No one is competing for the customers' dollar, they are imposing a price scheme because there is extremely limited competition and distributors are being allowed to abuse their pricing power.
Cost of living index is 96.5 in South Carolina, 134.5 in California. It's higher in California but not by an order of magnitude. Somewhat unexpectedly, grocery costs are not just the same but actually higher in South Carolina:
Could be California's higher population density allowing store costs to be spread across more units.
Also unexpected: The highest and lowest grocery prices in the continental US are Vermont and New Hampshire, respectively, and they're geographically right next to each other with nearly identical cost of living index but Vermont is paying 2.7x as much for groceries. But New Hampshire does also have 2.2x Vermont's population density.
In any event, price fixing doesn't seem like a strong explanation, because what are they doing, fixing prices in Vermont but not in New Hampshire?
At least in high population places like much of California, nobody controls distribution and placement to this degree. If you are not happy with Safeway - and there is no reason to be - you can buy some product categories at the other chains, at walmart or Costco, unpackaged at specialized grocery stores, at several kinds of ethnic grocery stores, even at eastern european grocery stores. And that's before getting to online, long distance, grocery delivery which is not even always out of the question on price. ALL of these are functional. We do have a lot of choice currently.
Thanks for quoting the textbook at me. Does that seem like a competitive market to you?
It shouldn't, because if it was, the cost would be pushed down near it's landed cost. That's a result of companies (both CPG producers and food market retailers) having concentrated market share in contravention of the law.
there is also competition for limited/expensive shelf space in the supermarket and only-so-much advertising media that must be shared with all other products
I'm old enough to remember that there used to be choices for different brands of various types of flakes: people use their dollars to exercise choices in the space of products to choose from, and they aren't any longer looking for a "dirt cheap corn flake shootout"
yes, there are also nonlinearities like minimum viable factory size, which leads to market concentration heading toward monopolization, but those factors are not specific to corn flakes nor driving that market.
did you know that Frosted Flakes are actually just stale corn flakes that are revived by spraying them with sugar? I used to work for a company modelling factory automation, and that was part of the model. So, if you don't sell sugar cereals, you're not as efficient.
The competition is clearly Cheerios which sells for $4.93, which is still not $8 (I did find Cheerios priced above $8 at other stores, but only in family and giant size which are 50-75% larger): https://www.walmart.com/ip/Honey-Nut-Cheerios-Heart-Healthy-...
I'm not making up the numbers. Or the substitutes. Every grocery store I go to has name brand cereals, and then in the exact same aisle, off-brand alternatives that sell for far less.
So yeah it seems like a pretty competitive market to me if I can buy an alternative for 40% of the price of the name brand by reaching for a lower shelf. Is $5 a lot for a box of cereal? Maybe, that's up to you as the consumer. But, name brand cereal is also not a necessity, you can live a very happy life, eating healthy breakfasts without ever having touched a box of cereal.
Again, it seems like a pretty competitive market. Cereal is not a necessity, there are tons of other breakfast foods that substitute just fine, there are a variety of companies selling more or less substitable products through a variety of outlets, and there are no real regulatory barriers to entry. If I don't like one retailer, I can choose from dozens of others owned by different companies. If you think that there is a ton of margin being made, this is your opportunity to get rich selling cereal, or even just investing in General Mills (which has a profit margin of 12% on their goods, and has under-performed the stock market as a whole).
If you don't like the price of an $8 box of cereal, go buy the $5 one, or the $2 one, or don't buy any cereal at all and eat yogurt, or order from Amazon.com where you can get the best of all worlds by having name brand Cheerios brought to your door for $1.99: https://www.amazon.com/Honey-Cheerios-Gluten-Free-Cereal/dp/...
This is a misunderstanding. There is no reason for SOME cereal to not be $8. Competition will not make ALL substitutable products go to the lowest price. The question is whether all cereal is there, or at least all plausibly substitutable cereal is there. And it's not. Someone else did the research, even if you want brand name Cheerios, there is still a lot of range in prices. Unfortunately many people are not THAT price driven, clearly.
Now, all these grocery store do have something in common. They are all in California (if we pick that state), so they all share the high cost of real estate, the high cost of custom formula gas, the high taxes, etc, etc, etc.
And the fire truck example, it correct, is much more of a problem. It's not hard to manufacture breakfast cereals (and clearly not THAT hard to distribute them) or to bring potatoes to restaurants! It's much harder to build reliable fire trucks.
I will emphasize: because people are paying that much for it. Willingly.
The competition is at Amazon, where I can buy a box of Cheerios, delivered, for $1.99. Or at Walmart where I can buy name brand cereal for $5, and Walmart equivalents for $1.97.
The company that makes the cereal is a low margin business. In fact most food that isnt high end is low margin. Somewhere they have a lot of costs to cover.
None of that answers the question of why a box of cereal that costs a dollar or so to deliver landed to a store costs me $8 to buy. Middle men are taking a huge chunk of the pie!
> costs a dollar or so to deliver landed to a store costs me $8 to buy.
Delivery optimization, logistics, and last mile operations are an unfathomably difficult problem(s) to solve, so much so that the entire world participates and there are still enormous gaps in efficiency, many that likely will never be solved due to physics.
I know you're plain wrong about it costing "a dollar" to deliver. Even if it did, you do not pay for just the operational cost, you pay for the convenience, expertise, reliability, or many other factors that comes with procuring a contract/agreement.
For a while, that was the entire strength of Walmart (efficient distribution) and they did amazingly well with just that. For many years now, even they have not been able to achieve that. It's not so easy.
Their point is simply that your cost estimate is likely wrong.
> It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost
Kellanova last had gross, operating, and net margins of ~35%, ~13%, and ~8%, respectively [1]. Likewise, Walmart achieved ~25%, ~4%, ~3% [2]. This isn't really compatible with "someone makes 700% of net profits on this box of cereal", unless you assume cereal is single-handedly subsidizing huge loss leaders for both its producer and retailers.
A 13.5 oz box of Kellogg's frosted flakes is $11 at Walmarts. A BIGGER box of 16.5oz is $4.4 in Tesco in the UK, and store brand is $1.25. Salaries are higher on average in the US, but the minimum wage that will include many in the supply chain is higher in the UK. Yes, I would say that there is gouging going on. Besides, a company makes 0% profit if all of it goes to the executives' paychecks, doesn't it?
Right, but "companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for" non-sequitur. There's plenty of ways that prices can raise faster than input costs, that doesn't imply price fixing.
Cartel via an app. It should be illegal. I was hoping feds going after RealPage would be a deterrent to that trend. But with the new admin, yeah thats over.
The author’s entire thesis is that there isn’t a market for lots of goods because of oligopolies colluding. Supply and demand don’t work like the textbook says they will if there’s no market. He’s saying that almost all potatoes are sold by a couple firms, and those firms collude on price, effectively meaning (from a pricing perspective) that there is only one potato company. They therefore can charge whatever they want, up to the point of driving their customers out of business.
This is in contrast to a healthy market, in which producers compete by lowering prices to the point where the producer would go out of business.
I also found this for criminal prosecutions under section 2 which is the section covering illegal monopolies. Pages 12 and 14 have some quick summary charts and tables.
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon are the ones in FANMAG off the top of my head.
Also keep in mind that the existence of the law guides decisions around compliance. There is ample evidence that all of the big decisions at FANMAG are viewed through compliance with anti-trust as a concern. Basically, a lot of big companies haven't been prosecuted because they have armies of lawyers working on where exactly that law kicks in, and how much they can step over the line without putting themselves at serious risk.
The existence of the law itself is a deterrence mechanism. It just seems like the justice department is hampered with a century old law in dealing with a modern world.
I personally think that we should be more zealous in enforcing, or better yet, pass better laws. Move the line way back, essentially.
The article is very clear in the mechanism: he posits companies are “blindly” colluding by using third party price information to inform their decisions on their own pricing. This isn’t “collusion” because they’re not the picking up the phone to each other to discuss price fixing. They’re allowing a third party to tell them what others are charging and “coincidentally” decide that they’d like to charge that, too.
If this fits the legal definition of a cartel and price fixing, I can’t say. I’m not a lawyer nor do I know what US law says on this matter. However, it’s fair to say there’s a bad smell to the whole affair.
No, the article says that the suppliers send data to a central service, which then tells them the optimal price, this service bases this price based on data sent by all other suppliers, and presumably gives all suppliers the same price.
True market clearing prices depend on easy entrance and exit of participants in the market. Apparently that isn't the case with potatoes, per the article.
I wonder what the thieve does with the car after stealing. Will you always need that Nokia to start it or is there some kind if aftermarket for counterfeit keys?
Once it's been started you get it out of the area, then connect onto the OBD/diagnostics and run the OEM "all keys lost" procedure with cracked dealer software, which lets you program brand new keys into the system.
Then they end up in a container ship bound for West Africa.
The cost of these devices is out of the 'simple criminal' pricerange, but is a minimal expense to a crime ring that can export a boatload of stolen cars at a significant profit as these cars go for significant price premiums overseas.
I believe many of the cars are disassembled for parts and scrapped, most of its value needlessly destroyed. Some are exported to third world countries. Most thefts are not value-adding or preserving operations, literally doesn't pay(well).
Yep. A person I know had his Mercedes A45 AMG stolen, thanks to the tracker he was able to find it in the middle of a forest somewhere, went there with a police officer to find two guys in the middle of taking apart his car to pieces, their excuse was "officer we just found it like that". I don't know if they were able to pin the theft on them or not in the end, but the insurer ended up scrapping the car and paying for a new one because the main wiring loom was cut and Mercedes wanted an absurd amount of money for replacing it.
Apparently quite common with Teslas as well, there is no way you can sell a whole functional car to anyone(well, not in any developed country anyway), but stripping them to pieces and selling them elsewhere is relatively common.
Volvo took really aggressive steps basically making sure that every component in the car that has any kind of electronic chip inside it has to authenticate with the car's VIN or it won't work at all - really annoying for the 2nd hand parts market but hopefully also annoying for thieves.
> the main wiring loom was cut and Mercedes wanted an absurd amount of money for replacing it
Modern cars can contain over a mile of wire and some of the important wires are all laid out during early stages of manufacturing, making it difficult to get at them for maintenance. Some cars have better access than others, but if they were carelessly tearing the car down, there's a good chance you need to take off, rewire, and test every ECU in the car.
As far as I can find online, most repair shops ask for about $1700-$2500 just to replace the main wiring harness, including the cost of parts and labour. A luxury Mercedes will have more wires and more automated systems, so you'll easily end up in the higher end of that range.
With a car in such bad shape, I wouldn't want my company to try to repair that car either, not without a "this is a bad idea" surcharge anyway. You just know it'll never run as well as it used to and if you make it a standard practice, you know at least a portion of your customers will blame you for it because you put the "repaired" sticker on that car.
The profitability of the second hand used components market is a real problem. I don't want a future where you can't reuse the parts in a broken down car because of some hard-coded encryption key, but the theft situation is seriously out of hand. Sadly, I think the Volvo approach will be the norm in the future.
The loom is sandwiched between the two sheets that make up the floor, it is amazing that they offered to replace it at all because as far as I know there is no way of doing this without serious damage to the vehicle.
Well I don't know if they quoted a specific number, but basically the insurer said that after consulting with Mercedes they established the repair would cost more than 50% of the value of the car so they are declaring it total loss. Maybe Mercedes just told them lol no, can't do this guys.
Yes, that's likely exactly what happened. Volvo pioneered that trick, it makes good sense as long as everything works but if it ever breaks you're done. The big plus is obviously that the loom is very well protected but insulation tends to lose its plasticity over time and in case it gets pinched anywhere you're in trouble. The only feasible option is probably to route an alternative loom through the cabin somehow and to leave the old one in place but non-functional. Even that would be a pretty tall order because there is simply no way to do this without fairly structural changes to the car in order to make room for the new loom in such a way that it is protected from mechanical wear.
On classic cars you can do this sort of thing easily enough, there the chassis was made first and then the wiring loom was put in place but on these modern vehicles you're sore out of luck. And EVs will likely be worse still, what with all the HV DC cabling to motors, batteries and charge ports.
It's counter intuitive but some vehicles are worth more as parts anyways. The market for used vehicles is only willing to pay so much for a vehicle. The market for people who happen to need a part and will pay for it is much larger.
>Ian’s sleuthing found that mostly these cars are destined for export, sent via shipping container to places in Africa
"These cars" might specifically mean things like the RAV4 and that other cars more reliant on good roads have less of a market in "places in Africa".
There must be a noticible flow of parts (eg headlights) to patch up damage caused by the theft. Likely the car manufacturers know, but it's not in their interests to talk about it.
I guess the idea is more not to attract attention in case of a random search, rather than plausible deniability. The phone couldn't operate as a phone... (nor the speaker, as far as I understand it).
For the sake of testing, I just downloaded youtube-dl from Github [1]. I then tried to run the program, but it failed with:
/usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
Okay, the script can't deal with "python" vs "python3", whatever - I'll change the script's first line and move on. Next attempt:
$ youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV8WFvSNYE
[youtube] 5pV8WFvSNYE: Downloading webpage
ERROR: Unable to extract uploader id; please report this issue on https://yt-dl.org/bug. Make sure you are using the latest version; type youtube-dl -U to update. Be sure to call youtube-dl with the --verbose flag and include its complete output.
I knew I would get this error because I got it two weeks ago already. And considering that the version number is `2021.12.17` that looks suspiciously close to a dead project, or at least for a project whose very description is "download videos from youtube.com or other video platforms".
Edit: I went through the repo and found that this bug has been reported two months ago [2]. I understand that the project is not dead in the sense that they are still looking at bugs, but if a major feature is not working for two months now then I think it's reasonable for people's faith in the project's future to be shaken.
> /usr/bin/env: ‘python’: No such file or directory
Your install is not configured properly. This is a googleable fix. (One example is to use `which python3` as part of your command https://stackoverflow.com/a/73610228)
Now in the first week of this issue I half recall the line in the code was pointed out, (possibly it's the one that's now being claimed as not a good fix still listed in the above) in one of the many people reporting the bug, with that being all that needed to be changed ... I didn't feel like at the time, grabbing the source, finding the offending line, and then compile it and besides there would probably be a working binary fix available for download that might have resolved a few other issues. I'd been following along every few days to a week to see there were any links to working forks compatible with older gear ...
Now my problem is I'm not running Win 13 or the latest linux distro but still I have the best up to date browser I've yet to find that runs on my old system ... and that link does nothing ... if I put the link in another it simply opens back at the top of the parent.
I figure I could copy every recent file one by one from the git repo and play at fooling with my own, but since someone commenting on this topic actually compiled the given source - only to land some old 2021 problem - sigh.
Now I have flipped though what I see in the above ... no fix info ... fucked and bye bye time. The next option touted as the fix sadly does not run on my old system, it could work with the online server but ... how long until ...
It is of course easier for people like me who are no longer or were ever competent programmers, let alone being well versed in python, to pick some other program - I've been told such as IDM will handle youtube antics fine as well as being compatible with older systems, so it may well be worthwhile to purchase a copy.
I can't follow this post very well. yt-dlp I think has this fixed. There is also ways to fix this without having to download youtube-dl file by file as you mention. (see this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/55562973 as a single example) there are are many easy ways to get around this issue. You can do it! Good luck.
Thanks. Unless you're inferring it works in interactive mode, I'll take it as a guide to rebuilding youtube-dl. Is there a link with all the updates in one pack or do I have to create a github account to gain access? Other than that, as an outline of a fix, the stackoverflow link as a solution seems vague to me.
There's a reply made to the current thread here which, to me anyhow, means the listed full source code at github has not been updated.
There are updated individual components - however it's been in the order of 16 years I've decompiled and adjusted and recompiled. It might be worth the effort ... if only youtube-dl was going to keep on sailing onwards. The nah moving to something else commentary informs me that sooner or later updates will probably get slower until such point people won't bother reporting issues - better for my old system to make the move sooner rather than later.
yt -dlp is probably relevant to the cheap online server I use with the latest python installed. I generally didn't use youtube-dl on it, unless the download was going to take some time and better to let the server accumulate it over a few hours. yt-dlp supposedly fixes the trick youtube used to try and discourage cli downloaders.
That depends on who "you" are.
Linux distros these days tend to ship modern python package with a python3 executable, no python executable. Many distros still support a python2 package, some install that as a python exeutable, some as a python2 executable.
iirc. homebrew on OSX installs python as a python3 executable, no python exeutable.
Hopefully no-one should support python v2 in 2023 ?
Fedora does the same. Must have been 3 or 4 years ago Python 2 was removed as a dependency from the core system packages and "python" started resolving to a Python 3 release.
I expect this has filtered down to RHEL9 now.
Multiple version are supported with "python2.7", "python3.9" etc. if a version older than the current default is required.
Expecting python3 to be available as 'python' means that _your_ install is broken (until the time when python3 re-implements all the syntax and semantics and stdlib of Python 2.7 so that code may run unmodified).
The I can't believe it's not youtube-dl quasi unofficial fork yt-dlp has a most recent stable release 2023.03.04 (last month).
Of the two one is keeping up with the month by month twists and turns of websites altering their video embed methodologies to defeat CLI rippers .. and the other one isn't.
There is much much more to the code base than simply youtube ripping, both can (in theory) also rip from (say) ABC Australia's iView, from the Royal Institute Christmas Lecture series, from redtube, etc (hundreds and hundreds of variations of websites).
That shim layer between the core ripping engine(s) and the manifold ways of embedding access to a stream is what is being kept current in yt-dlp releases (and -U updates).
Original most recent official youtube-dl (December 2021 release) can no longer find its update service.
A while ago youtube-dl broke and wasn't fixed. yt-dlp fixed the problem.
Granted, I haven't kept up on whether original youtube-dl eventually got around to getting its primary functionality to work. The several-month interregnum that definitely occurred seems like a good reason to consider it "dead".
It's been fixed but the new maintainer refuses to release a new version until someone manages to help him figure out how to get automated builds running (which seems to have been the problem for the past year and he refuses to just do a manual build so that youtube-dl at least works with YouTube).
Have you tried yt-dlp? I remember what made me switch. YouTube downloading didn't break, but became extremely slow when compared to my actual network speeds. YouTube seems to do something to fuck with the speeds every so often. yt-dlp is quick to hop on those issues.
It stopped being able to download videos from youtube. That's not the only functionality, but -- given the name of the software -- I'd say it should have been fixed. All the repo activity in the world won't balance out the inability to do the only thing you advertise that you can do.
youtube-dl only works for some people around the globe, as youtube is apparently running A/B testing. Yeah there's a sort of fix ... that's been tucked away at github by way of go nowhere link, but there's the given idea it's time to ditch the cheap computer or online server and try and get something else to run instead. I read that sort of sentiment as that yup it's probably dead and maybe time to move onto more expensive toys that programmers really give a fuck, well that year ... or just ignore youtube for the time being. It's sad because what I generally viewed on youtube was of no interest to the music industry.
