It indicated the quality of the video / content, allowing us to decide if it was worth watching.
It indicated if the video was controversial (think 50-50 bar). Thus it showed where other people stand on the content of the video.
It was a quick summary of the public perception without needing to read many comments.
It was YouTube's qualitative advantage over videos & content from FB, Insta, Twitter. Those platforms without a dislike button allow crap content to be prevalent.
Youtube may give bullshit reasons like they removed the Dislike bar to "protect" creators from dislike-harassment but actually their motivation to remove it comes from point (1). If we cannot see the dislike count, it would increase user engagement, user watch time, increasing monetary profits.
Thus, I urge you to realize this, and consciously reduce YouTube engagement.
Skip over videos that you are unsure of for which you previously would have consulted the Dislike bar. Don't give them the watch-time, ad-time and Views.
Unsubscribe from YouTube Premium. Use an adblocker in the browser. I guess if you are a power user who uses it on mobile & TV, this will be hard to resist.
Use more alternative sites like Odysee.com, Vimeo, DailyMotion, FB Videos, CuriosityStream etc.
By removing the Dislike count, the valuable information gained from points (1), (2) & (3) will be lost forever in the future. The way people use the Dislike button will change because they cannot see the Dislike bar. More of crappy content will become prevalent. Imagine clickbait videos, fake news, fake guru videos for which you would not be able to see how many others have Disliked; you would take that content more seriously than if you could see the Dislike count. Bad content creators won't get accurate feedback.
I'm sure Google / Youtube understands all these negative consequences; because afterall they are the smartest people. But they can afford to do this because they have a monopoly. This is why we can't have good things. When a company has a monopoly, the quality of the product goes down. They just think of maximizing profits.
It is sad that Google / Youtube has made this decision for chasing financial profits, by causing a reduction in user experience and reduction in quality of content in the future. Google used to be the charming company that made products for actual good of the world, not for profits. But seeing this deviation change from their original company principle is saddening, lowering their image in the eyes of the public.
Perhaps by boycotting their attempt at increasing user engagement they would bring back the Dislike bar.
Finally, I leave you with the following three videos to watch to understand why censorship on Youtube, FB etc is bad. Hiding the Like/Dislike opinion of other users is a form of censorship.
Ten years ago, after finishing my bachelors when I was in an existential crisis, I had come up with this purpose for my life:
My purpose of life, since we do not know our purpose, is to find that purpose of life. i.e. Work on finding out the Truth, meaning of life and universe.
One way I figured I could contribute to this is through the field of machine learning and AI - I did not understand it much especially since I had studied mechanical engineering, but I felt it in me that these could be legit avenues. I figured if we ever invent a "self-learning machine", and provide it the same senses, cognition and motion as humans, it would learn and grow way faster than humans could. And then when it knows more than humans, we could just ask it the purpose of life.
My life did not go as planned for whatever reasons. I could not get onto that academic path of contributing to such science & tech directly [yet?]. Blame it on opportunities, circumstances, resources, personal flaws, procrastination, lack of information, bullshit US visa system, whatever. Life happened. I have been quite depressed about that for long.
Recently, I have been revisiting the simulation hypothesis (like The Matrix), and it has been causing a bit of an existential crisis again. Imagine humans in an effort to understand the universe spend thousands of years with science, tech, art etc, and finally understand it only to discover that they have perfectly understood only a simulation, and there is another real universe outside it with an unknown number of layers of simulations outside it! Our simulation may not have the same behavior as the real universe. The real universe may not even be observable. That information may just not be available to us. What then! Well, that throws out my original purpose which had pacified my existential crisis.
I have also been reading / watching a little about how there possibly are limits to what we can know. Something like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
So I guess if purpose-1 would be fundamentally impossible, then what's there to life at all? Other than just having fun, do your time and get out when it's time? Hence, I now have a secondary purpose in addition to the original primary purpose (at least tentatively until it gets ingrained):-
Enjoy living, as if you're in a video game with just 1 life. There's no meaning to life, just do what you like.
This is the message of the movie Soul. It's the same message as Kurtzgesagt's video on Optimistic Nihilism. It's probably the same message as when people say "Don't forget to have fun!". It's probably the same message as what my mom writes in her email signature - "Be Happy". It's the same message as The Happiness Equation's rule - "Be happy first, then pursue wants".
--
Musings to follow this:
Implications of that purpose. Hedonism? Maximizing fun? Short-term vs Long-term gain? Calculative vs impulsive? Calibration of that? Morality?
People don't understand that when they are arguing over something, they NEED TO keep their language unambiguous and clear to eliminate any possibility of doubt and misunderstanding. As it is, any language is not fully efficient in conveying the exact meanings. On top of that if you start using rhetoricals, sarcasms, taunts, it increases the ambiguity all-the-more. I mean, sometime person B won't get your sarcasm while you assume he is getting it. And so B's reply would seem more arrogant to you. Then again, there may come another sarcastic statement, or a rhetorical question, delaying the solution exponentially!
So here are some basic rules I believe should be followed when you are Arguing or Debating or Discussing a topic:
1) Remember that an argument has a solution / conclusion. The conclusion could be something that you commonly concur upon, or it may be identifying which on aspects your preference differs, or a combination. The common conclusion may or may not be in your favor but you should strive to work towards the true solution. In other words, drop your ego, and be honest & frank. 2) Try to keep the language down-to-earth. Be direct. And expect direct, sharp sentences. Because the truth can be bitter. 3) Get straight to the point without trash talk like above because it only increases tempers and delays the solution. Don't beat around the bush.
For example: Don't counter like this (like person B does):
A: I have no idea what you are talking about X-(
B: You know very well what I am talking about X-(
Instead do this:
A: I have no idea what you are talking about X-(
B: I am talking about how that day you ditched me and went to play basketball with Katrinn.
^^ Even though you think A knows what you are talking about, SAY IT so that further beating around the bush is avoided.
4) For some mature topics, you may need to use profane words like sex. Don't be prudish in an argument.
5) An argument/discussion/debate must be logical. Feelings and emotions can be considered within the logic.
6) At some point one may say "Pratyek goshtila karan astach asa nasta" i.e. "Not everything has a reason". I think everything does have a reason, but it may just be really hard to find or identify. It may be difficult to put into words or too lengthy. Or it may be something too obvious to realize. Take your time to reflect, and try to explain the reason.
Abstract thinking / analogical reasoning / metaphorical thinking / mathematical thinking / symbolic thinking - This makes you intelligent and witty! Comedians probably develop this early in life, heading in the direction of street smartness rather than technical. Scientists, researchers and inventors do the same but on a very technical level, drawing analogies between mathematical models and real-world systems. Artists do the same which is why they see deep meaning in abstract arts. Movie directors do this so as to depict something with great impact.
Everything in our understanding of the world is probably analogical, for example, an atom may not be really an atom. An atom according to our understanding may be representative of something different but behaves in the same way.
Good movies to exercise this: Mr. Nobody, The Fountain.
We use swear words to express some quick anger / frustration like -
fuck!
shit!
"abe yaar"
Some people say that expressing in such a way is good. But I have been believing otherwise since my childhood. I know from childhood that using swear words to express some tiny frustration momentarily actually amplifies the frustration at least a little.
Here is a point to support it:
If you force a smile now on your face, you do feel slightly happy!
If you force your facial expression into that a sad, droopy face, you do feel sad
Hence, expression results in more of that emotion!
When you use an interjection like "shit!", or "abe yaar", "damn",... it increases that feeling
Instead, you should overcome the need to interject and continue being unperturbed. That keeps you more peaceful and lets you think with more clarity in the next moment.
-
Extension to this topic -
While arguing with someone too, one can get annoyed, frustrated and either use swear words, or lose their calm. The above idea can be applied here to instead remain totally calm & unperturbed by the other person's comments.
When arguing with a friend / acquaintance, you can let go off the frustration / annoyance by thinking "this guy is an idiot, I'll not get too involved in this subject; his loss!" and continue being unperturbed.
But when arguing with a close person, you cannot overlook their potentially incorrect views because they matter to you.
A living cell is an organization of various organelles, DNA, chromosomes etc. An atom is an organization of sub-atomic particles. An organism is an organization of various organs. An organ is an organization of various tissues, cells etc. Similarly, a human being is an organization of various organs. The solar system is an organization of some planets, asteroids, sun, moons. The earth itself is an organization of various elements in it.
So, perhaps everything is an organization of many other things in it, in the mathematical model of the universe. These organizations coexist, and may affect others.
The human race is an organization which affects the earth. In this organization, political leaders serve the role of defining how to organize the humans thus making the organization more efficient.
With all the knowledge and videos I take in, I feel like I am getting a better and better understanding of how the world works. I now have a different understanding of religion and the origin of the concept of God than I did a few years ago, and I think this new understanding makes more sense. My currently trending word is "civilized"
We are animals by nature. We would be nihilists by nature if we grew up isolated from humans, in the jungle. Since nature has made us that way, I would think "what is wrong with being a nihilist?". Joker was a nihilist in the dark knight movie. He wasn't a planner, he just did things on a whim, did whatever came to his mind naturally. What is wrong in following our natural instincts? If naturally, a man want fell in love with another woman while being married, if he has an affair with that woman, he is just following his natural instincts - the way nature made him.
The answer is - Because we as mankind (humankind), in contrast to apes, have so much higher in intellect that we can choose to ignore the natural instinct and do something else!
The early man (from the time of the origin of Homo Sapiens, about a 250k years ago), probably realized that upon ignoring the natural instinct, there can be something else to do that could be favorable to him in the long run. This "something other than the natural instinct" can be favorable to your group in which you hunt and live. Then came the discovery of agriculture about 11k years ago due to which people could focus on other things than collecting food everyday and could settle in one place. Eventually we began doing more and more things that an animal wouldn't do. Doing these things progress mankind as a whole and also gives benefits to individuals, such as not having to focus on food hunting everyday for yourself. Eventually, people developed a set of guidelines to follow that would help in advancing their settlement as a whole even though some guidelines may restrict an individual's freedom to follow some of his natural instincts. These "guidelines", obviously were based on their then current "way of life".
At the same time, to explain un-understood phenomena like lightning, rain, birth etc etc, people came up with the idea that higher beings must be controlling those phenomena. Now, someone probably wanted to advertise these guidelines with the intention of doing good for the society. His own settlement would be following these guidelines, but how can he spread it to others? How could he convince other settlements to follow it? Some would get convinced but the majority of the world does not see the big picture and so does not understand the long term advantage. btw, this "someone" is a placeholder for either one person or a group. So this someone could have used the concept of God to sell his ideas. If he himself made 50% sense, the other 50% could be covered up under the name of God. These guidelines are nothing but religion. Over the years, such guidelines passed down for years with modifications and new clever people preaching their modified versions, thus forming new religions and prophets. Also over the years, guidelines should ideally change with changing technology and progress. Perhaps newer religions incorporated some of such changes.
Bottom line: Following these guidelines that help in the overall progress of society is the definition of being civilized.
To answer the initial question - what's wrong with having an affair outside marriage since you are only following your natural instincts - if you are a nihilist, then there's nothing wrong. But you can only either be a nihilist or civilized, not both because they are opposite ways of living life. Nihilism and being civilized are two nodes on the same level.
If you have grown in a country among the human society, then you have grown up enjoying the advantages of civilization and have also been taught to be civilized. So having an affair outside marriage is wrong w.r.t the idea of society in which one lives in. You have to use your human intellect to curb your natural instinct I.e. be civilized, in order to be consisted with the society which is for the purpose of advancement of humankind.
I feel great to have realized the significance of "being civilized" and be able to contrast it with nihilism. What I explained above is consistent with this video from PragerU -
All this new understanding makes me revise my position on religion. Religion could be separated into two things - Way of life, and God. I subscribe to the way of life*, but not to the idea of God. Moreover, as a civilized human being who understands the merits of being civilized, I don't need to believe in a God to follow the guidelines as his commandments. eg. I understand the advantage of not murdering someone, so I don't need a God to tell me not to do so.
*Regarding following the "way of life" aspect of religion, some guidelines would be outdated. They could either be not necessary or could have better, updated alternatives to follow. So, I wouldn't follow any one religion's ALL of the guidelines entirely. I would try to understand the original purpose of that guideline and check if there's a better way to do it or check if it is even necessary for the progress of the current society. I wish someone or some institution had done this task of scrutinizing all religious guidelines, understanding their original purpose, updated or discarded them to create a new set of guidelines for our current world. It's the 21st century! I'm surprised that this does not exist yet! We need to teach the people that the civilized guidelines (way of life) should be followed because of the merits of being civilized and not because of an outdated concept of god commanding people to follow them.
Corollaries and tangential topics to research
There are many tangential topics that could emerge from this article.
1) If being civilized is to curb your natural instincts for the betterment of society (which in turn benefits individuals), then should a civilized suppress his/her slightly homosexual tendencies?
2) Since humans have the option of being healthy by eating only vegetarian food and because humans feel sympathetic towards animals, should a civilized person avoid eating meat?
3) Why do people get married?
The article explains that the institution of marriage exists because it is beneficial for the society. But why and how exactly is it beneficial to society? Is a monogamous marriage more beneficial or a polygamous marriage more beneficial to society?
These questions are tough to answer. But perhaps, the best answer automatically evolves over time. This is an assumption. Under this assumption, I would say that "monogamous marriages", as a way of life, evolved to be the most beneficial way of life for society. Could research more on this assumption and other possibilities.
