lmao you're so wrong on ads being more profitable than premium, especially on a per-user basis
According to this you can expect to make around $18/1000 views. That's with 55% going to the creator and 45% to Google. Which means that Google makes around $14.5 per 1000 views.
Coincidentally, that's also rougly the price of YouTube Premium. Are you telling me that you watch a thousand videos per month?
Won't work, can't work.
There are companies which have insane revenues but tiny profits - let's say manufacturing, where you need to pay a shitton for materials and workers, just to get a bit in return.
There are also companies where the main source of income is selling people's time, say a consulting firm like McKinsey. Their income/revenue ratio is gonna be totally different from the first example.
I'm sure there are good ways to do it but this ain't one of them.
Hell yeah
That's the thing though - they deliberately made the product crappier after people already bought it.
Think this applies if Denuvo is included from the beginning, but it wasn't here
It being a status symbol becomes kind of irelevant if every other person has it
They do, unfortunately
Sync does the exact same thing.
If ads are removed, no tracking takes place.
Sounds pretty clear to me, no tracking if ads are removed
zfs is available on Linux just fine
People fly first class, people fly businees class. Some have the money.
Also, for some, the time saved is worth much more than what the ticket costs, especially in business (expensive consultants?).
why is NASA doing this with tax dollars
The resulting aircraft/technology can be sold to commercial aviation and/or be used for military purposes
something obvious
NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, so it's kinda in scope
They don't care about people using it, they might even personally do it themselves.
It's about reducing their liability, which this does just fine
Give it a month or two, they'll break