Drak3

No, this is misinformation. Few games genuinely need more than 6GB, many games can reserve more than 6, but doesn't use all of it. And most programs that report VRAM usage, don't see what the actual usage is. They see how programs and their OS is reserving VRAM.

They're introducing new rules. Every US based video publisher and platform.

Content is irrelevant as the pending rule change is currently written. So, unless the FTC changes it, anyone breaking the 'appealing to kids' rule is fucked into either not making money or being fined. Some people think that rewriting the new rules to be less vague and/or have actual provisions for content creators (that create teen/adult oriented content based on things children find interesting) to be able to age gate content as alternative to being classified as "for kids." In my opinion, the new rules need to be scrapped in their entirety. No matter how they're written, the bad parents that lead to this situation will continue to allow their kids to have access to inappropriate content instead of actually taking the time to do their jobs as parents.

Actual content of the new rules dictate that any channel covering topics appealing to kids (such as games or cartoons, Wolfenstein: The New Blood and Southpark included), feature children, feature a celebrity children like (Markiplier, JackSepticEye, Pewdiepie, etc.), are targeting children. Disclaimers are irrelevant to the FTC. Actual content of the videos is irrelevant to the FTC.

Should the new COPPA rules be voted in, yes, it will result in the end of many YouTube channels. Any video that appeals to kids, regardless of the actual content of the video, disclaimers, or age restrictions, will be deemed to be for kids. Those videos will not be allowed to show up in search, no subscription notifications are allowed, and recommendations won't be allowed. There also can't be targeted advertising, which is about ~90% of the revenue of the video. Heavily reduced views that make less money per view. There will be no point to content creation anymore. And many channels are not willing to take the chance that the FTC won't resort to suing them AND make no money.

If individual content creators are committing false advertisement, you go after them directly with the laws on the books that already deal with false advertisement. That is not what hundreds of thousands of channels are doing. What COPPA's proposed update does, is it classifies ALL content that appeals to kids as being made for kids. It does not matter that the content is age restricted. It does not matter that there are in your face disclaimers. The FTC's announcement. They will start going after creators in the start of 2020. I've said this multiple times. FTC rules are not held to the same scrutiny as laws. Hence why they overseen by a committee independent of Congress. Nor are the fines settled in the same way. The FTC sues, and courts decide the merits of the FTC's case and rules on a case by case basis. The odds of the new rules being overturned is slim, unless the entire law is thrown out like previous failed laws. These commissions don't operate identically to the rest of government. And even if the rules were overturned, that is a slow process. Too slow to keep hundreds of thousands of small content creators closing up shop and losing their jobs. But you already admitted you don't care about them.

Doesn't work like that. The proposed law is that if your video just appeals to kids, then you are making videos for kids in the eyes of the FTC.

No, only one state takes 11% (10.8% technically). New Jersey. Six states take literally nothing. Seven don't have lotteries. Not quite. They collect the withholding rate. Nothing more, nothing less. Withholdings are still subject to tax returns. If you already withhold more than you're legally liable for, the IRS will refund part of what they take.

Assuming Youtube is "kid friendly," or any site with USER GENERATE CONTENT is just idiotic. And thinking someone that doesn't do their job as a parent is a shitty parent is fairly common sense. Yes, we can. Do you know the end result of these laws? They ultimately don't work for the supposedly intended goals. Unsupervised and poorly parented kids will still watch all the inappropriate content they want. It just won't be on YouTube. But instead, the thousands of channels targetting audiences older than kids, will be criminalized. The FTC has already stated that they are going to start suing and fining content creators whose videos appeal to kids starting 2020 if their updated COPPA passes. Not target kids. Appeal to them. That means Markiplier. That means Game Theory. That means Screen Rant. That means Mondo Media. That means LinusTechTips. That means Donut Media. That means Paramount Pictures. And every other channel that gets views from kids. Repeating false equivalencies isn't going to make them equivalent. The health department doesn't protect me from eating unsafe products. It protects me from being sold unsafe products that I'm told are safe. The FDIC doesn't protect my savings. It prevents banks and credit unions from offering me a way to save money, and not following through. Both situations, the thing you falsely say government is stopping, isn't being stopped in any capacity. I can let my food rot and then eat it, I can throw away money on lootboxes. The regulations just stop companies from entering implied contracts with no intention of upholding their side of the bargain or lying to consumers.

Yes, 25% Federal, and 0-11% depending on the state. And as it's considered income by the IRS, it becomes subject to standard income tax.

That's false. Base Federal withholding rate is 25%, and states can have their own withholding rate (New Jersey being the highest at just over 10%, and 6 states don't charge taxes on their lotteries). That 25% also isn't the final taxes due, your income and other withholdings also play into that, so one can pay less than 25% of the lottery winnings in taxes when all is said and done, or the winnings raises your tax bracket (though, most agencies will pay you 60% up front regardless).

As I've already said, you're very likely keeping at least 60% of the winnings, $30 million, which is still enough money for most people here to do what they want and still have quite a bit left over.

Yes. The FTC stated that that is exactly that they're going to start doing January 2020 if this change to COPPA passes. This is the finalized version going up for vote. There will be no adjustment if voted in when December rolls around.

No, we just know that it isn't near as severe as you want us to believe it is.

COPPA is intervention from the US Government. Only to you. Technically yes. But the new update infringes upon their capability capitalize on it. It also bars ANY content creators from notifying subscriber, being recommended by the publisher, having end cards, having comment sections, and from showing up in search results. The right to free speech on public platforms is being limited, undermined, infringed. And this is for videos DEEMED to be targeted at kids, ultimately by the FTC, on ALL US based platforms and publishers (not just YouTube). This it NOT the audience that the content producers are actually targetting. This is not what the actual audiences of said content producers are. And the NEW rules that are being voted on dictate this: The use of "child focused language," such as "cool," or "games" ANYTHING appealing to children: music, games, cartoon characters, stories, etc. That second point is where a huge issue arises: EVERYTHING is appealing to kids. Kids want to learn about new things. Just about everything sparks their interest. That's because THEY ARE TRYING TO INTRODUCING NEW SUBLAW. Yes. I have. But, again, I'm only responsible for what I say. I'm not responsible for what YOU don't understand. It doesn't even need to be Mario. Wolfenstein: The New Order, a game with what is arguably softcore porn in it, is content targeting kids, because Wolfenstein is a game and games are appealing to kids.

False equivalence. Movies are professionally reviewed and rated. User generated content is not. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to verify that it is safe.

False. I'm okay with government stepping in with a regulation that food producers cannot knowingly sell dangerous food (issues like the E.Coli outbreaks are a case by case topic). It still gives me the freedom to produce my own food and consume it, regardless of how dangerous it is, or for me to eat all the unhealthy food I want. That would be theft. Something that is uniformly illegal. These laws actively infringe upon the rights of content creators, specifically the First Amendment: free speech. It is literal government censorship. COPPA isn't limited to youtube. I have the right to make and share videos. Publishers have the right to refuse to host it. Even if you can't recognize these false equivalencies, they're false equivalencies. Yes, I have. Twice now. But I'm only responsible for what I say, not for what you don't understand.

False equivalency. I already explained why. On user created content, it absolutely is. COPPA, and the new update, were specifically created at the behest of those too incompetent or lazy to raise their own kids. The entirety of COPPA is government stepping in (and overstepping the First Amendment) to raise kids the way THEY see fit.

Except they haven't. Yes. You didn't do your due diligence and make sure what your kid is watching is appropriate for them (and specifically them, as kids can develop mentally at different speeds). It is Google's job to uphold their end of any contracts. That's irrelevant. It is YOUR JOB as a PARENT to ensure that YOUR KID is not being exposed to things they are not ready for. It is not the job of government. It is not Youtube's job. It is not the content creator's job. If YOU are inadequate as a parent, it is solely YOUR FAULT. Early on, that is EXACTLY what the parent's job is. As a kid matures, and understands enough about the world to recognize that there are things not meant for them yet, they get more freedom to make those choices themselves. If you don't explain how things work, that is YOUR FAULT. It is not a content creator's job to ensure that your snot nosed brat doesn't watch their videos. It's not Google's job. It's not government's job. It is yours. If you cannot handle it, take some personal responsibility and don't have kids.

And they're subject to the same exact rules. Any monetized content is. It's not Google's job to do the parents' jobs for them.

Contractual obligation. So yes. They could. But they didn't. No, they put out something vague and it stays vague. The current guidelines are as vague as they were when first created.

The new FTC guidelines are so vaguely written that the only ways to ensure one is safe from the new update to the law is to: Do it for effectively free Delete everything False equivalence. The Health Department is responsible for making sure all commercially sold food products are safe for human consumption. They're not responsible for what you choose to eat or feed your kids. Labor laws were created so that employers cannot unnecessarily endanger the lives of their employees, not dictate every aspect of employment nor are the laws applied the same along all career avenues. And yes, you can work for yourself if you find your work conditions unsatisfactory, it's one of the key requirements for capitalism. Whereas the FTC is now telling content creators that any piece of content they create that could appeal to children, is made for children. Context is irrelevant to them. Actual content is irrelevant. Youtube Partner Program obligations. Because they agree to let Google run ads over the content, in exchange for money.

I edited it because I remembered that Ford released their new Ram 1500 mini Ranger, which has a turbo i4. But the old 4 banger trucks didn't have much all that much power (they also didn't really need it as they were lighter, for economic reasons, and the tow/haul arms race hasn't reached that point yet), so their engines didn't put as much weight in front of the front axel. The issues with weight distribution are still there, but they're less pronounced. And instead, old trucks like the Hilux were less than ideal wheelbases for their ground clearance and overall weight. They had tendencies to either spinout and/or tip over.

It's a constant amongst every truck lucky enough to have more than a N/A 4 banger of the 80's.

Not really. It's dependent on weight and power distribution. Cars have their weight distributed better, and unless they're using the same/similar engines to truck counterparts with the same tunes (Pentastar V6, Hemi V8, etc.), they're going to be less prone to delivering too much power relative to weight above axels. Trucks, being predominantly front heavy, don't have the weight over the rear axel for the tires to get adequate grip to accelerate at a decent rate and control it, and the weight of the engine will have a tendency of wanting to drag the vehicle forward, while the inadequate weight distribution behind the front axel won't work to dig the tires into the ground. Keeping weight in the bed fixes this issue, extent depending on vehicle. Whereas most modern cars more if their mass behind the front axel and less in front of it.