Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #186873 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-19 16:35 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-22 19:38 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 107 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2025-08-19 16:35 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2025-08-19 16:47 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-08-19 07:59 -0700
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-19 22:37 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-18 12:04 -0700
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-18 20:57 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-10-19 10:08 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-12-13 20:32 -0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-12-14 20:24 +1100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-12-14 11:05 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-19 16:06 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2025-08-19 11:21 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-19 18:20 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2025-08-19 18:12 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-19 15:20 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-20 00:24 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 12:27 -0400
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? YT user<invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 16:34 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-19 18:24 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-20 21:05 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-20 13:04 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-19 21:59 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-20 02:45 +0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2025-08-19 20:50 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-19 23:35 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-19 22:14 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 02:25 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-20 04:07 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 13:39 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-20 21:57 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-20 14:26 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-20 23:00 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-20 15:45 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-21 20:27 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-22 08:22 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2025-08-23 08:28 -0700
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-23 21:17 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-23 23:37 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 03:38 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 03:05 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 15:49 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 15:05 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 17:56 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 17:58 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 20:31 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 18:44 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 23:53 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 03:28 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:00 +0200
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 16:51 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 09:41 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 16:52 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 17:50 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 17:57 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 04:28 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:03 +0200
YouTube subscribes (was: Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"??) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 16:16 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-25 20:24 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 21:47 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-08-26 01:04 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-26 04:32 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-26 19:17 +1000
Re: YouTube subscribes "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-26 14:54 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-26 11:33 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-26 15:09 +0200
Re: YouTube subscribes Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-26 17:02 +0100
Re: YouTube subscribes "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-26 19:56 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> - 2025-08-24 12:47 -0600
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 22:40 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> - 2025-08-25 11:29 -0600
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 22:02 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> - 2025-08-25 16:28 -0600
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-26 19:47 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> - 2025-08-26 10:31 -0600
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-26 20:24 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-27 16:01 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 09:28 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-24 09:17 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 15:15 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-24 18:04 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-24 18:19 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-25 05:10 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-12-13 20:20 -0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-12-14 20:28 +1100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-12-16 22:18 -0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-12-13 20:16 -0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-14 00:16 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-12-14 14:20 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-14 14:06 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-12-16 22:12 -0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-12-14 20:31 +1100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-12-16 22:13 -0800
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-12-14 10:48 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-12-14 23:21 +1100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-14 14:17 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-19 15:21 -0500
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-20 09:45 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-20 10:00 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-20 16:05 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-21 09:04 +0100
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-22 08:13 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-25 13:40 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-25 16:51 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-22 07:30 +0000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-22 20:37 +1000
Re: YouTube : "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"?? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-22 19:38 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 01:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <108iq6h$3nip4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187003 |
On 25.08.2025 22:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/25 19:24:53, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-08-25 17:16, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2025/8/25 13:3:55, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-08-25 05:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > > [] > >>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; I _presume_ it means it >>>>> _does_ give you more from that channel. (Maybe even it gives you _every_ >>>>> _new_ post from that channel.) I've not seen it actually say anywhere, >>>>> though. (Though I haven't really looked.)> >>>> >>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. >> >> I get notifications in my phone, for example. > > Ah. I'm accessing via web browser (on computer) only.> >> On my computer, the loged in session gets messages under the bell icon >> (top right). >> > Is that the same place you get notificatinns that someone has posted a > folloeup comment to any comments you make? If so, I get such > notifications, but have never seen a notification of a new video. > just wondering WTF has the YT homepage to do with Windows or Firefox??? ciao...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 04:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <108j9ss$3grl8$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187008 |
On 2025/8/26 0:4:48, Schugo wrote: > On 25.08.2025 22:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2025/8/25 19:24:53, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-08-25 17:16, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>> On 2025/8/25 13:3:55, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-08-25 05:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> >> [] >> >>>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; I _presume_ it means it >>>>>> _does_ give you more from that channel. (Maybe even it gives you _every_ >>>>>> _new_ post from that channel.) I've not seen it actually say anywhere, >>>>>> though. (Though I haven't really looked.)> >>>>> >>>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. >>> >>> I get notifications in my phone, for example. >> >> Ah. I'm accessing via web browser (on computer) only.> >>> On my computer, the loged in session gets messages under the bell icon >>> (top right). >>> >> Is that the same place you get notificatinns that someone has posted a >> folloeup comment to any comments you make? If so, I get such >> notifications, but have never seen a notification of a new video. >> > > just wondering WTF has the YT homepage to do with Windows or Firefox??? > > ciao... > Good point; appropriate 'group added, and followups set. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf # 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird # 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone # 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 19:17 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <108ju23$3uol9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187008 |
On 26/08/2025 9:04 am, Schugo wrote: > On 25.08.2025 22:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2025/8/25 19:24:53, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-08-25 17:16, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>>> On 2025/8/25 13:3:55, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-08-25 05:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> >> [] >> >>>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; I _presume_ it means it >>>>>> _does_ give you more from that channel. (Maybe even it gives you _every_ >>>>>> _new_ post from that channel.) I've not seen it actually say anywhere, >>>>>> though. (Though I haven't really looked.)> >>>>> >>>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. >>> >>> I get notifications in my phone, for example. >> >> Ah. I'm accessing via web browser (on computer) only.> >>> On my computer, the loged in session gets messages under the bell icon >>> (top right). >>> >> Is that the same place you get notificatinns that someone has posted a >> folloeup comment to any comments you make? If so, I get such >> notifications, but have never seen a notification of a new video. > > just wondering WTF has the YT homepage to do with Windows or Firefox??? > > ciao... > What are you watching the YouTube homepage with. Firefox on a Windows system, maybe?? Or should that be SeaMonkey (spoofing FF) on Windows?? -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 14:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <ccn0olx7tl.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #187003 |
On 2025-08-25 22:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/25 19:24:53, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-08-25 17:16, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2025/8/25 13:3:55, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-08-25 05:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > > [] > >>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; I _presume_ it means it >>>>> _does_ give you more from that channel. (Maybe even it gives you _every_ >>>>> _new_ post from that channel.) I've not seen it actually say anywhere, >>>>> though. (Though I haven't really looked.)> >>>> >>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. >> >> I get notifications in my phone, for example. > > Ah. I'm accessing via web browser (on computer) only.> Me too, but if I do login, the account is the same one as in the phone. >> On my computer, the loged in session gets messages under the bell icon >> (top right). >> > Is that the same place you get notificatinns that someone has posted a > folloeup comment to any comments you make? If so, I get such > notifications, but have never seen a notification of a new video. I wouldn't know. I have not seen follow up to comments, because I comment very sparely, maybe twice, so I don't get answers. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 11:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <mh5gr6Fp4i5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #187001 |
>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; >>> >>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. it isn't subscribing itself that does that, it is using the notification bell that does that. I subscribe to many channels, but get notifications from none of them, my phone would never shut-up if I allowed notify from youtube. >> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. It's a notification in the android app, maybe also push notify from the browser client?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 15:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <6ao0olx6ao.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #187017 |
On 2025-08-26 12:33, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do;
>>>>
>>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel.
>
> it isn't subscribing itself that does that, it is using the notification
> bell that does that. I subscribe to many channels, but get
> notifications from none of them, my phone would never shut-up if I
> allowed notify from youtube.
You can subscribe without notifications?
I'm looking at a subscribed channel. I see a droplist:
black bell icon All
white bell icon Personalized (check)
crossed out bell None
crossed out person Unsubscribe
I see I have personalized notifications, but I forget how to see what
that means exactly. In the notification bell itself (top right) there is
a cogwheel.
Desktop notifications Get notifications in this browser No
even if not watching youtube
(I assume this means push notifications)
prefs Subscriptions Yes
reccomended videos No
more entries.
I have very few subscribed channels, and some of them have no activity,
so my phone doesn't bother me much with them.
>>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails.
>
> It's a notification in the android app, maybe also push notify from the
> browser client?
Ah, yes. I have disabled the later.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 17:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <mh6450Fs841U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #187022 |
"Carlos E.R." wrote: > I see I have personalized notifications, but I forget how to see what > that means exactly. In the notification bell itself (top right) there is > a cogwheel. <https://www.youtube.com/account_notifications> I have every slider there set to "off" On a per-channel basis, my notification setting is also "personalised" but that is effectively the same as "off" for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 19:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: YouTube subscribes |
| Message-ID | <108l003$6e3d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187022 |
On 2025/8/26 14:9:58, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-26 12:33, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>>> I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; >>>>> >>>>> You get told when there is a new video on that channel. >> >> it isn't subscribing itself that does that, it is using the notification >> bell that does that. I subscribe to many channels, but get >> notifications from none of them, my phone would never shut-up if I >> allowed notify from youtube. I'm only on computer/browser, not 'phone.> > You can subscribe without notifications? > > I'm looking at a subscribed channel. I see a droplist: > > black bell icon All > white bell icon Personalized (check) > crossed out bell None > crossed out person Unsubscribe And the "white bell icon Personalised" is the one it defaults to if you subscribe from the unsubscribed state.> > I see I have personalized notifications, but I forget how to see what > that means exactly. In the notification bell itself (top right) there is > a cogwheel. > > Desktop notifications Get notifications in this browser No > even if not watching youtube > (I assume this means push notifications) I don't know what it would mean for me; presumably popups in the browser. I have that set to off, too. I get the impression that _these_ settings are global, i. e. not channel-specific. > prefs Subscriptions Yes "Notify me about activity from the channels that I'm subscribed to" I have no, which presumably is why I've never got a notification of a new upload. (Though I don't know if it would tell me about other "activity" - I wasn't sure what other activity it might tell me about, which is probably why I set [or left, I can't remember] it to off.) > reccomended videos No "Notify me of videos that I might like based on what I watch" For me, that is on: however, I don't think I've ever had such a _notification_. (And I'm subscribed to a lot of channels, and watch a lot of YouTube, so would expect the algorithm to think I might like lots of videos.)> > more entries. > Activity on my channel (on), Activity on my comments (off), Mentions (on), Others reusing my content (on), promotional content and offerings (on). I have been assuming that these settings follow the common convention of blob to the right (which it colours blue) means on/yes, and blob to the left (which it colours black) means off/no. However, given that the _only_ notifications I can remember getting for some time - and plenty of those - have been when someone likes, or posts a followup to, my comments, I am wondering if these are the other way round? That would certainly explain why I'm only getting activity-on-my-comments notifications, though not why I'm _not_ getting new-upload ones. > > I have very few subscribed channels, and some of them have no activity, > so my phone doesn't bother me much with them. > > >>>> How do I get "told"? I certainly don't get emails. >> >> It's a notification in the android app, maybe also push notify from the >> browser client? > > Ah, yes. I have disabled the later. > I can't remember when I last got an email "from" YouTube. I see towards the bottom of the above Notifications page, there's a drop-down headed Unsubscribed emails, which if I drop it has only one entry, "Someone leaves a comment on my video or responds to my comments on a video", with a Resume option, presumably meaning I have "Unsubscribed" it, which would account for my not getting emails. (Quite why it bothers with a drop-down list for only one entry I don't know; I guess under some circumstances there could be more than just the one entry.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 12:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <03nmak919lnl3trau343ktd9cpn7mmq4tu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #186972 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I >mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what >proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the >person or entity who created the video I am viewing? About the same amount as would get to the "content creator" by my not wanting to watch the "content' due to the amount of ads that Goggle and Utube interrupt the "content" with. I am loathe to admit this but every time I read one of these debates I keep going 'What ads?' I never see any ads on utube. I never login, I never paid, and I view most of them online. Any that do have ads imbedded in the actual "content" itself I will immediately turn off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 22:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108g0rs$2gija$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186981 |
On 2025/8/24 19:47:12, james moffat wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" > <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I >> mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what >> proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the >> person or entity who created the video I am viewing? > > About the same amount as would get to the "content creator" by my not > wanting to watch the "content' due to the amount of ads that Goggle > and Utube interrupt the "content" with. I'm afraid my parsing engine broke on that paragraph (-: > I am loathe to admit this but every time I read one of these debates > I keep going 'What ads?' I never see any ads on utube. I never login, > I never paid, and I view most of them online. Any that do have ads > imbedded in the actual "content" itself I will immediately turn off. (I think you might mean "loth", and "embedded".) As for embedded ad.s, I usually just skip over them, no problem. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I admire him for the constancy of his curiosity, his effortless sense of authority and his ability to deliver good science without gimmicks. - Michael Palin on Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/5/7-13
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 11:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <7e6pakpett4vdobd4dppdeaqrkvcedp3od@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #186982 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:40:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >On 2025/8/24 19:47:12, james moffat wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" >> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >> >>> Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I >>> mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what >>> proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the >>> person or entity who created the video I am viewing? >> >> About the same amount as would get to the "content creator" by my not >> wanting to watch the "content' due to the amount of ads that Goggle >> and Utube interrupt the "content" with. > It is a little long winded so here is the TLDR: Amount of money going to 'Creators'; Watching Ads With Blocker=not watching 'Content' due to Ads So my ad blocker does not affect the income of the 'Creator' one iota. (iota:noun 1. the ninth letter of the Greek alphabet (?, ?), transliterated as ‘i’ 2. an extremely small amount Example: nothing she said seemed to make an iota of difference) >I'm afraid my parsing engine broke on that paragraph (-: > >> I am loathe to admit this but every time I read one of these debates >> I keep going 'What ads?' I never see any ads on utube. I never login, >> I never paid, and I view most of them online. Any that do have ads >> imbedded in the actual "content" itself I will immediately turn off. > >(I think you might mean "loth", and "embedded".) As for embedded ad.s, I >usually just skip over them, no problem. loathe :verb 'lot?h loathed; loathing transitive verb: to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance : detest Imbedded : Imbed is simply a variant spelling of embed—and it is much less commonly used. Imbed doesn't have any different meanings, uses, or senses. It is simply a different way to spell the word embed. I will Admit to having mistakes in my posts more than once but in this case I meant what I wrote. Me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108ij0h$3grl8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187000 |
On 2025/8/25 18:29:55, james moffat wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:40:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" > <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> On 2025/8/24 19:47:12, james moffat wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" >>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I >>>> mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what >>>> proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the >>>> person or entity who created the video I am viewing? >>> >>> About the same amount as would get to the "content creator" by my not >>> wanting to watch the "content' due to the amount of ads that Goggle >>> and Utube interrupt the "content" with. >> > > It is a little long winded so here is the TLDR: > > Amount of money going to 'Creators'; > Watching Ads With Blocker=not watching 'Content' due to Ads I don't understand the above line.> > So my ad blocker does not affect the income of the 'Creator' one > iota. (I know what "iota" means.) >> I'm afraid my parsing engine broke on that paragraph (-: >> >>> I am loathe to admit this but every time I read one of these debates >>> I keep going 'What ads?' I never see any ads on utube. I never login, >>> I never paid, and I view most of them online. Any that do have ads >>> imbedded in the actual "content" itself I will immediately turn off. >> >> (I think you might mean "loth", and "embedded".) As for embedded ad.s, I >> usually just skip over them, no problem. > > loathe :verb > 'lot?h > loathed; loathing > transitive verb: to dislike greatly and often with disgust or > intolerance : detest Yes, that's what loathe, verb, means. You used it as an adjective (which it isn't). Now look up "loth", adjective, which means "reluctant", which is what you meant.> > Imbedded : Imbed is simply a variant spelling of embed—and it is much > less commonly used. Imbed doesn't have any different meanings, uses, > or senses. It is simply a different way to spell the word embed. On that one, I concede: I did not know it was an alternative spelling.> > I will Admit to having mistakes in my posts more than once but in this > case I meant what I wrote. > Me I don't think you meant loathe - detest - there; "I am detest to admit" doesn't make sense.(It's not an uncommon error, as many people know "loathe", and have _heard_ "loth to admit" but have never seen it written down so assume it is the same word. [Strictly the pronunciation isn't _quite_ the same: "loth" has an unvoiced "th", as in lath or both, whereas loathe has a voiced th, as in "the".]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf What has happened since 1979, I suspect, is that the spotting of mistakes has become entirely associated with mean-spiritedness, snobbishness and judgementalism. But...can be...funny and interesting. Lynn Truss, RT 2015/2/21-27
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 16:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pbopak98avku51s1n5713c889ku719h6gh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #187005 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 22:02:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >On 2025/8/25 18:29:55, james moffat wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:40:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" >> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 2025/8/24 19:47:12, james moffat wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" >>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I >>>>> mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what >>>>> proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the >>>>> person or entity who created the video I am viewing? >>>> >>>> About the same amount as would get to the "content creator" by my not >>>> wanting to watch the "content' due to the amount of ads that Goggle >>>> and Utube interrupt the "content" with. >>> >> >> It is a little long winded so here is the TLDR: >> >> Amount of money going to 'Creators'; >> Watching Ads With Blocker=not watching 'Content' due to Ads > >I don't understand the above line.> >> So my ad blocker does not affect the income of the 'Creator' one >> iota. > >(I know what "iota" means.) > >>> I'm afraid my parsing engine broke on that paragraph (-: >>> >>>> I am loathe to admit this but every time I read one of these debates >>>> I keep going 'What ads?' I never see any ads on utube. I never login, >>>> I never paid, and I view most of them online. Any that do have ads >>>> imbedded in the actual "content" itself I will immediately turn off. >>> >>> (I think you might mean "loth", and "embedded".) As for embedded ad.s, I >>> usually just skip over them, no problem. >> >> loathe :verb >> 'lot?h >> loathed; loathing >> transitive verb: to dislike greatly and often with disgust or >> intolerance : detest > >Yes, that's what loathe, verb, means. You used it as an adjective (which >it isn't). Now look up "loth", adjective, which means "reluctant", which >is what you meant.> loth:adjective 'loth 'lot?h less common spelling of loath : unwilling to do something contrary to one's ways of thinking : reluctant Example: She was loath to admit her mistakes. The 'e' on the end may not be used anymore and may be considered incorrect but was common when I learned the spelling in my youth. Lets just agree to disagree on this one due to national idiosyncrasies . >I don't think you meant loathe - detest - there; "I am detest to admit" >doesn't make sense.(It's not an uncommon error, as many people know >"loathe", and have _heard_ "loth to admit" but have never seen it >written down so assume it is the same word. [Strictly the pronunciation >isn't _quite_ the same: "loth" has an unvoiced "th", as in lath or both, >whereas loathe has a voiced th, as in "the".])
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 19:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <108jvrp$3v52s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187007 |
On 26/08/2025 8:28 am, james moffat wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 22:02:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" > <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >> On 2025/8/25 18:29:55, james moffat wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:40:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" >>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >>>> On 2025/8/24 19:47:12, james moffat wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" >>>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I >>>>>> mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what >>>>>> proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the >>>>>> person or entity who created the video I am viewing? >>>>> >>>>> About the same amount as would get to the "content creator" by my not >>>>> wanting to watch the "content' due to the amount of ads that Goggle >>>>> and Utube interrupt the "content" with. >>> >>> It is a little long winded so here is the TLDR: >>> >>> Amount of money going to 'Creators'; >>> Watching Ads With Blocker=not watching 'Content' due to Ads >> >> I don't understand the above line.> >>> So my ad blocker does not affect the income of the 'Creator' one >>> iota. >> >> (I know what "iota" means.) >> >>>> I'm afraid my parsing engine broke on that paragraph (-: >>>> >>>>> I am loathe to admit this but every time I read one of these debates >>>>> I keep going 'What ads?' I never see any ads on utube. I never login, >>>>> I never paid, and I view most of them online. Any that do have ads >>>>> imbedded in the actual "content" itself I will immediately turn off. >>>> >>>> (I think you might mean "loth", and "embedded".) As for embedded ad.s, I >>>> usually just skip over them, no problem. >>> >>> loathe :verb >>> 'lot?h >>> loathed; loathing >>> transitive verb: to dislike greatly and often with disgust or >>> intolerance : detest >> >> Yes, that's what loathe, verb, means. You used it as an adjective (which >> it isn't). Now look up "loth", adjective, which means "reluctant", which >> is what you meant. > > loth:adjective > 'loth > 'lot?h > less common spelling of loath : unwilling to do something contrary to > one's ways of thinking : reluctant > Example: She was *loath* to admit her mistakes. "loath"?? Sorry, James, poor example of the usage of "loth"!! But "English" never was my Stronge Suite. ;-P -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | james moffat <spam.spam@distributel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 10:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <lnnrak5a90dbivcrgrv1ju7m0j7oguk2ds@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #187016 |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 19:47:58 +1000, Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote: >> >> loth:adjective >> 'loth >> 'lot?h >> less common spelling of loath : unwilling to do something contrary to >> one's ways of thinking : reluctant >> Example: She was *loath* to admit her mistakes. > >"loath"?? Sorry, James, poor example of the usage of "loth"!! > >But "English" never was my Stronge Suite. ;-P >-- >Daniel70 Sorry Daniel70 but that was a direct quote from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary not an example created by me at all. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loth If you still feel it is incorrect please go discuss it with them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 20:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108l1li$6e3c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187024 |
On 2025/8/26 17:31:22, james moffat wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 19:47:58 +1000, Daniel70 > <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote: > >>> >>> loth:adjective >>> 'loth >>> 'lot?h (I think - before usenet corrupted it - that said "loath".) >>> less common spelling of loath : unwilling to do something contrary to >>> one's ways of thinking : reluctant >>> Example: She was *loath* to admit her mistakes. >> >> "loath"?? Sorry, James, poor example of the usage of "loth"!! The OP had added an "e" on the end, which was incorrect* (for this meaning, meaning reluctant [adj.[ rather than detest [verb]); but his addition of the "a" was not incorrect*, just a less common spelling.>> >> But "English" never was my Stronge Suite. ;-P >> -- >> Daniel70 > > Sorry Daniel70 but that was a direct quote from the Merriam-Webster > Dictionary not an example created by me at all. > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loth > > If you still feel it is incorrect please go discuss it with them. > * Despite what I have said, and what most people think, most dictionaries - and I think that includes Merriam-Webster - are _descriptive_, not _prescriptive_ - in other words, they record how language _is_ used, not how it _should_ be; they do not express an opinion on the latter. Some older entries that have not been revised for a while may describe some (e. g.) spellings as "considered incorrect by some", or even (_very_ old entries) incorrect, but such opinions are being removed as revision proceeds. There _are_ prescriptive dictionaries - those which say how things _should_ be (e. g.) spelt; they are mainly for, for example, people _learning_ English, who _need_ such guidance. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-27 16:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <108m6vp$fnq3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #187026 |
On 27/08/2025 5:24 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/26 17:31:22, james moffat wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 19:47:58 +1000, Daniel70 >> <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> loth:adjective >>>> 'loth >>>> 'lot?h > > (I think - before usenet corrupted it - that said "loath".) > >>>> less common spelling of loath : unwilling to do something contrary to >>>> one's ways of thinking : reluctant >>>> Example: She was *loath* to admit her mistakes. >>> >>> "loath"?? Sorry, James, poor example of the usage of "loth"!! > > The OP had added an "e" on the end, which was incorrect* (for this > meaning, meaning reluctant [adj.[ rather than detest [verb]); but his > addition of the "a" was not incorrect*, just a less common spelling.>> >>> But "English" never was my Stronge Suite. ;-P >>> -- >>> Daniel70 >> >> Sorry Daniel70 but that was a direct quote from the Merriam-Webster >> Dictionary not an example created by me at all. >> >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loth >> >> If you still feel it is incorrect please go discuss it with them. >> > * Despite what I have said, and what most people think, most > dictionaries - and I think that includes Merriam-Webster - are > _descriptive_, not _prescriptive_ - in other words, they record how > language _is_ used, not how it _should_ be; they do not express an > opinion on the latter. Some older entries that have not been revised for > a while may describe some (e. g.) spellings as "considered incorrect by > some", or even (_very_ old entries) incorrect, but such opinions are > being removed as revision proceeds. > There _are_ prescriptive dictionaries - those which say how things > _should_ be (e. g.) spelt; they are mainly for, for example, people > _learning_ English, who _need_ such guidance. > Sorry!! Just seemed weird that, when trying to define an adjective "loth" you would then actually explain a different word or different incarnation of the word. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108h6rd$3aava$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186966 |
On 24/08/2025 14:49, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-24 04:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2025/8/24 0:37:47, Marion wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:17:44 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote : > > >>> But back to what I never see... I never see an ad inserted by YouTube. >>> >>> If anyone else is seeing YouTube-inserted ads, they're not doing it >>> right. >> So what do you think you're doing different? As I say, I wouldn't have >> expected being unique every time to affect whether they're inserted or >> not - onlu which ones _are_ inserted. > > I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all > cookies. They have all the history. > > I simply use uBlock Origin. > +1 But I do get a 10 second wait before the video shows. uBlock Origin also removes a lot of commercial (as opposed to private) ads inserted in Facebook Marketplace. -- Regards wasbit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 09:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108ehqo$2m6b7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186952 |
On 23/08/2025 16:28, Stan Brown wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:22:00 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote: >> Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >> you don't have to, and never pay for anything. > > Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you > get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a > reason why that's a saying everyone knows. > Marketing hype to justify higher prices. -- Regards wasbit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108faba$1iho$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #186963 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:17:28 +0100, wasbit wrote : >>> Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >>> you don't have to, and never pay for anything. >> >> Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you >> get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a >> reason why that's a saying everyone knows. >> > > Marketing hype to justify higher prices. Agree with wasbit that the classic goal of marketing is to make people jump to completely unwarranted (but favorable to their product) assumptions. It's how premium fuel is sold, for example, where people jump to a completely unwarranted assumption that Chevron gas is better simply because it's advertised to have Techron (which is mostly plain old polyetheramines, which all USA top tier fuels have plenty of). For decades I (seemingly innocently) nonchalantly ask people and attendants at the gas pump what's the difference between premium & regular, and I almost always get the unwarranted assumptions that marketing wants you to think simply because it costs 50 cents more per gallon out here in California land. For most cars, it's actually worse gas (although not meaningfully so), and yet people pay half a buck more per gallon based on unwarranted assumptions (don't even get me started on similar marketing hype of the iPhone please). The absurd "you get what you pay for" mantra is pure bullshit IMHO, designed for low-IQ people, since it's always said by people with absolutely zero education on the product itself, and therefore who have no clue about the product as all they know is the price. The dumber a person is, i.e., the less they know about the product, the more desperate they seem to be to gauge the product based on a number line. That number line is often price, but it could be grades such as 'L/XL/GXL' or 'bronze/silver/gold' or worse, warranty number lines (1yr/2yr/3yr), etc. The truth is you never get what you pay for. a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is). b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web