• UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    22 days ago

    People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

    You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

    Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

    You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

    – Banksy

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    23 days ago

    Worse case scenario, we gotta make an extension that detects the ad UI and blanks the screen and mutes the audio until its over

  • polle@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    Doubt. Never underestimate the hate and motivation against ads.

  • Rolando@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    24 days ago

    some people still recommend using a VPN and IP address from a country where YouTube ads are prohibited, such as Myanmar, Albania, or Uzbekistan.

    Wait, you can just prohibit YouTube ads at a national level? That’s somehow awesome and terrifying at the same time.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        24 days ago

        Yeah, I don’t see what’s terrifying. Countries can make laws, if YouTube wants to operate in that market it has to follow the laws there.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          There seems to be an abundance of the false notion that large corporations are somehow above governments on Lemmy … and that’s simply not true, at least for corporations that want have legitimate business within the country.

          EDIT: So as to say … perhaps the commenter (at least in the moment) was a bit awestruck seeing laws apply to tech (which often seems to feel as though it’s above the law in some way).

          • Halosheep@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            23 days ago

            Myanmar, as a country, has a GDP of 62.26 billion usd.

            Google has a market cap of 2.17 Trillion usd and made a profit of $305 billion usd last year.

            Google makes more money in profit than moves through Myanmar in a year by nearly 5 times. If Google chooses not to operate in their country because of some law they don’t like, what’s to stop them?

            Google definitely has national government level influence, especially considering the pervasiveness of their product suite. Implying that they’re above the law might be too far, but they for sure influence it.

            If the most extreme happens and Google decided that some EU law was too much to deal with compared to the gains, a lot of Europeans could find themselves in a position where Google doesn’t operate in their country. Imagine every Android device becoming unable to use the majority of the service they operate on, or the most common browser, search engine, email service, and video streaming services simultaneously being disabled. I can’t imagine the people will be very happy about that.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            23 days ago

            Trust me, I hate them also. But they also fund a lot of great things. And there are ways to have ads that are not invasive or omnipresent.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      24 days ago

      That’s somehow awesome and terrifying at the same time.

      The people of this country would find it just the normal thing.

    • Confused_Emus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Are these countries even safe to host a VPN server in?

      Edit: Just checked my VPN (Proton) and it has options to connect to Myanmar and Albania. Nifty.

      • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 days ago

        Myanmar’s average internet speed looks to be around 10-20mbps, so they probably stream with lower quality. Their GDP per capita is ~$1,150, so ads being shown to people in Myanmar wouldn’t be worth much anyway.

  • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    23 days ago

    Good. This is how YouTube dies. This is how Google dies. This is how competitors/alternatives are born. Stop fighting to make Google services useable against every effort of theirs. Let them drive people away to make (or discover) alternatives.

    • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      23 days ago

      I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Do you have any idea how many billions with a B it would take to even start a viable, proper competitor to youtube? and how quickly that capital B could end up becoming a Capital T?

      I hate people who keep screaming about let youtube die and alternatives will be born.

      Youtube has been shit for years. No ones made an alternative that is viable.

      Any an all alternatives are subscription based services, and tiny. Like Floatplane, Utreon and whatever the gunfocused one is that I cant remember off the top of my head, if it even still exists.

      Anyone that has that kinda money are probably already in bed with googles capitalistic hellscape ideals for hte internet and not interested in going against them.

      Creating competitors for things like Reddit and Facebook are relatively easy. Creating a competitor for something that probably accumulates hundreds of terabytes, if not more, per hour? That takes insane amounts of storage, and bandwidth, and overhead, and everything else that costs more than any regular person could ever have a hope of even having a wet dream over.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        23 days ago

        If you tried to create a centralized one? Yeah, it would take a lot. Would a decentralized one be as expensive? I’m not sure.

        I think the best goal would be to try to create a platform for creators that has a low barrier to entry - both in terms of cost and skill - that gives them the ability to easily and quickly set up a “channel” to “broadcast” from and earn some revenue somehow.

        Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

          Because thats the very reason why people hate current streaming services, and you’re arguing to not only make it worse than that, but to make the end users eat the costs of storage and bandwidth.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            23 days ago

            You don’t understand why people hate streaming fragmentation.

            You can have a billion decentralized openyoutube all on the same page, just look how lemmy already does it.

            Podcast also did it with RSS. Agglomeration isn’t an issue on a decentralized open platform

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            23 days ago

            If they shared the same protocol, or at least reasonably compatible versions of it, you could have one app that does all of them.

            • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              23 days ago

              The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

              Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

              • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                23 days ago

                Sponsors pay much more than views. So does patrons.

                The true issue is discoverability in my opinion.

                • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

                  Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

                  Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

                  Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        23 days ago

        Yet bittorrent does youtube fives times over with central governance. You have drunk too much cloud coolaid. My laptop could host my youtube channel without issue and I would still have enough juice to play counter strike and download the latest marvel slop movie.

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 days ago

          Boy howdy, users sure would love to pivot to a peer distributed content system that randomly downloads chunks of a video file as they become available with speeds of anywhere between 2 bytes and 2 megabytes a second (which one you’ll get depends on who you’re getting the chunks from) with literally no guarantee of being able to even complete said download because the people they’re downloading it from may not all have the entire file’s worth of combined data across their respective computers, and they have to download the entire video before watching it to determine whether or not they even want to watch it in the first place. Also, there’s no capacity for monetization without literally doing what Google is trying to do and injecting advertisements directly into the video, so there’s no incentive for any content producers to use this system to distribute said content, meaning it would be a ghost town of a service from the start.

          Yep, that would be a great system. /s

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            23 days ago

            Exactly.

            I’m feeling like this whole “distrubuted youtube!” argument is nothing but a variant of the blockchain fantasy. Seeing a lot of the same style of arguments and ignorance.

            • Balder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 days ago

              It’s a common trap for certain types of people to assume technology can fix problems that are inventive or socially driven.

              • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                22 days ago

                Its also a common trap for idiots to grasp hold of a fraction of a fragment of an idea and think it gives them complete and total understanding, and then go around proselytizing their absolute incompetence as if its techno-gospel.

                Which I think is why this distributed youtube bull follows the same general argument trend as the mythical and holy blockchain. That does nothing, but somehow can magically solve all problems.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 days ago

                We solved this problem BEFORE youtube was even a thing. Youtube only exists out of convenience for normies. Youtube can die tomorrow, we will still have unlimited video. In fact, think youtube slowed down innovation on this front. Torrent trackers are unchanged in their form from 2003. I wouldn’t mind federated content, browser integration of torrent systems and locally running content recommendation system as well as social crowdsourced review systems (aka the like button and comments)

          • kalleboo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            22 days ago

            To be fair, a LOT of people swear by Popcorn Time, which is exactly that. I was surprised it worked as well as it does, too.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            23 days ago

            If the file is that poorly seeded, and therefore extremely sparsely watched, then the laptop with a broken screen in my closet can serve it to anyone who wants it.

            The only reason we need a scalable system, is to handle high demand / broad appeal media and in that case, what you describe WON’T happen.

            For low demand media, https off my mom’s coffemaker will do just fine.

            That means anyone posting 100-200 video to youtube today, can easily handle all these situation with less expense than the price of whatever camera they filmed the content with to begin with.

            Youtube only exists, because us, old internet fucks, got lazy and relied on google for mail and video.

            We could EASILY EASILY EASILY done it ourselves.

            • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              23 days ago

              A service people want to use is typically one with redundancy and high availability. Your laptop could overheat, have a drive failure, spontaneously lose its wifi connection, or a million other things. It’s fundamentally unreliable.

              only reason we need a scalable system, is to handle high demand

              Scalability isn’t just about distribution. It’s about reliability and convenience - two things your system as described lacks by design. A video file that no one but you has ever seen has the same exact degree of accessibility as one served to millions.

              We could EASILY EASILY EASILY done it ourselves.

              This is the copium talking. If it had been easy to do and monetizable, it would have already been done. That’s the other part of the problem here. There is no incentive for anyone to use this system to consume or distribute content other than to decouple from Google. Opposition to an existing service is not enough of a motivator for people to use a system. It has to provide some comparative benefit that outweighs the cost incurred by continuing to use the other service. The big thing that Youtube has is, obviously, content. Exabytes of it. Your new service would have…nothing. We have left the age of services starting up and gaining massive movements of people behind them. We are now in an age of the internet in which the inertia of existing services will carry them decades into the future. Youtube is now too big to fail, and too big to be replaced.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                23 days ago

                We are in the age of the toy internet, it is all about to crumple like a house of card bought on cheap credit and unviable business models. Youtube is not long for this world and nobody will miss it. The only question is how much of it Archive Team can save before if goes up in flames. Well, the good parts of it, that’s easy but can we save the garbage too, I’m not sure. Take any channel on youtube and its creator can easily serve it’s entire catalog out of a obsolete chromebox with two usb sticks on the side. Even as small as a terabyte would still be mostly empty space. Youtube was built defective by design using 1970s ideology, it is immensely wasteful.

                • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  I want to see how you can serve thousands or millions of people with a Chromebook in your closet. And if you say p2p, that doesn’t deal with spikes in demand and a lot of old content will just vanish even easier than on YouTube. Also it would rely on people being willing to seed.

                • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  23 days ago

                  Blockbuster died because its business model was rendered obsolete by virtue of widespread adoption of the internet and the advent of streaming. And because it refused to shift its business model away from physical media distribution to digital. Let me know when they invent something that makes the internet obsolete, will you? Because that is what it will take to dethrone YouTube.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          Your laptop would become suicidal the second it had to start serving streaming, 4k video to dozens of people, much less hundreds or thousands.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            23 days ago

            My laptop can copy files at 15 mbps, very very easily. Hundreds ? Again piss easy, that’s what bittorrents are for, even easier when the swarms takes care of all the traffic. The more people are 10 or so and the faster it will copy itself. Do you cloud people still know how to copy files or was that arcane knowledge lost to the sands of 1995 ?

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              I hate the cloud you perfidious incompetent. The only thing more stupid than the “cloud” is your belief that you can serve hundreds, if not thousands, of simultaneous streams,possibly 1080, most likely 4k, from your 15mbps laptop.

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              You must not want a youtube competitor then, if your goal is to just okay-ly stream to just a couple dozen or so people.

                • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  20 days ago

                  You are correct. Nearly all youtube channels can be fully served off a single laptop. 260 concurrent streams at 1080p 3mbps is achievable over gigabit ethernet. Very few channels exceed this for any appreciable amount of time. And in those cases we can leverage a very small amount of the client’s ressources to further propagate the stream. This can be done with repurposed bittorrent dht. Now all we need is federated RSS and a locally running content curation algorithm and a social review system (like buttons and reputation history)

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      The alternative should be libraries hosting the peoples internet.

      You may balk at the idea, much like you would have at the idea of free public libraries when originally conceived.

      • eodur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        23 days ago

        I like this idea so much. Do the public libraries not have some kind of video service already? Seems like a network of library-powered PeerTube instances would serve that niche really well.

    • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      It has been THE viteo platform for literally decades. There is so much content there; it would be a tremendous effort to direct that elsewhere.

      And that other site would quickly succumb to storage and bandwidth costs. What options could exist?

    • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      I like youtube, i use it quite a lot. I wouldn’t use it at all without ad and sponsor block. I don’t know how so many people do it, it’s crazy to me.

  • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    23 days ago

    Over the past years I’ve been reducing my youtube and twitch viewership anyways. Its literally the lowest form of entertainment and its not worth a single moment of ad watching. I’ll just do something else. Most youtube content sucks anyways. I don’t even remember most of the channels I used to watch.

    They’re just going to increase their own server costs chasing some tiny fraction of viewers who will do anything to avoid ads. they should be grateful for the adviewers they have.

    • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      23 days ago

      Its literally the lowest form of entertainment and its not worth a single moment of ad watching.

      I’m just curious, but what type of content would you be watching on YouTube?

      I think the platform has come a long ways when it comes to content. Sure, if you’re just watching gaming content I’d say you’d be disappointed. It’s been like that for a decade now at least. There’s a lot of decent content on there though with a lot of it even being somewhat educational.

    • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      Man, you’re definitely spot on with this. For me, it’s a fast, easy source of superficial distraction that I can put on for background noise and don’t have to pay attention to. It’s ultimately what cable TV used to be for me. I’ll even leave on a streamer playing a game in the background on low volume if I’m going to sleep just for white noise. At this point, the behavior and desire for that kind of content is so ingrained in me that it’s sort of like an addiction. I wish there were alternatives to youtube, but that era of video content might just be straight up dying for some of us. I guess if anything I’ll start fleshing out my plex server with old t.v. shows and just put Gilligan’s Island or something on in the background.

      • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        23 days ago

        Yea, a plex server for idle viewing would be a way better alternative. Just make a custom nickelodeon, comedy central, etc and have it run random episodes of random shows.

      • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 days ago

        Perfect opportunity to reprogram your brain. Put on something healthy like waves on the shore, etc.

    • Flanhare@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      22 days ago

      I guess there is a lot of crap on the platform.

      But I follow many really really good content creators that put out very high quality content week after week.

      I still want to watch their content and I can’t subscribe to all of them.

    • dlpkl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 days ago

      Yeah you’re right, YouTube just isn’t what it used to be. I miss when people made videos for free because they wanted to share something with the world. Now it’s a full time job

  • andrewth09@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    If the YouTube interface restricts you skipping during certain parts of the video, an ad blocker can detect that and skip over it anyway. Otherwise, I myself will just skip over the ad.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 days ago

      you’re actually helping by lowering the amount of revenue they have to shuffle offshore and hide from the feds.

  • dalë@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    I accidentally watched YouTube the other night without adblock, OMFG what an experience.

    If I can’t watch with adblock I’ll just stop using it, it’s only a rabit hole to waste time for me anyway.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      23 days ago

      Yup, and I’m not willing to pay for Youtube Premium because the app kinda sucks and I don’t like Google keeping track of what I watch. I’m willing to pay, but I’d really like to keep using the 3rd party apps I prefer (Grayjay and NewPipe).

      So like Reddit, I’ll drop Youtube if my 3rd party apps stop working. That’s my line in the sand. If Youtube wants to get money from me, it needs to be through an API disassociated from my identity.

  • gressen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    YouTube’s next move might make it virtually impossible to watch YouTube

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    i would rather have video go black for the duration of ad than watch that filth

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      22 days ago

      Used to put up with this back when Hulu was free. Adblockers weren’t as sophisticated then, so I had to watch 2 minutes of a black screen every commercial break. Still better than watching ads.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 days ago

    I pay for premium… but also like my sponsorblock… and 3rd party clients. Let me have it all momma Google.

    • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      23 days ago

      I can’t justify premium. For the same price I can buy for my family:

      AppleTV+, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+

      Or:

      YouTube but without ads

        • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 days ago

          NZD.

          AppleTV+ ($14.99, Amazon Prime Video ($10.99) and Disney+ ($14.99) = $40.97 per month

          YouTube Premium = $39.99 per month

      • twei@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        Get a VPN and make a quick trip to Turkey or Ukraine where you can get it for about 2€/month

          • twei@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            Yes, it’s been working for a year now. I set my location back to Germany right after subscribing to premium

      • FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        That’s me too. I was a family subscriber for years. Some of those years it was just myself on there too. But the price hikes and interface degrading was infuriating.