Youtube comments of Benjamin Rood (@benisrood).

  1. 1600
  2. 126
  3. 119
  4. 118
  5. 103
  6. 99
  7. 95
  8. 52
  9. 43
  10. 42
  11. 39
  12. 37
  13. 37
  14. 35
  15. 35
  16. 33
  17. 31
  18. 29
  19. 28
  20. 28
  21. 27
  22. 26
  23. 25
  24. 24
  25. 24
  26. 24
  27. 23
  28. 22
  29. 21
  30. 21
  31. 20
  32. 19
  33. 19
  34. 19
  35. 19
  36. 19
  37. 18
  38. 18
  39. 16
  40. 14
  41. 14
  42. 14
  43. 13
  44. 13
  45. 13
  46. 13
  47. 13
  48. 12
  49. 12
  50. 12
  51. 12
  52. 11
  53. 11
  54. 11
  55. 11
  56. 11
  57. 11
  58. 10
  59. 10
  60. 10
  61. 10
  62. 10
  63. 10
  64. 10
  65. 10
  66. 10
  67. 10
  68. 10
  69. 10
  70. 10
  71. 10
  72. 10
  73. 10
  74. 10
  75. 10
  76. 10
  77. 10
  78. 9
  79. 9
  80. 9
  81. 9
  82. 9
  83. 9
  84. 9
  85. 9
  86. 9
  87. 9
  88. 8
  89. 8
  90. 8
  91. 8
  92. 8
  93. 8
  94. 7
  95. 7
  96. 7
  97. 7
  98. 7
  99. 7
  100. 7
  101. 7
  102. 6
  103. 6
  104. 6
  105. 6
  106. 6
  107. 6
  108. 6
  109. 6
  110. 6
  111. 6
  112. 6
  113. 6
  114. 6
  115. 6
  116. 6
  117. 6
  118. 6
  119. 6
  120. 6
  121. 6
  122. 6
  123. 6
  124. 6
  125. 6
  126. 6
  127. 6
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187.  @typecraft_dev  Former filmmaker, current developer - I am just going to give you two specific tips that would help it work a bit better: I don't think you should entirely give this up, it's not a bad idea. It's just badly executed. 1) get rid of the dissolves between those two angles, just use hard cuts. 2) try to crop/zoom the side angle tighter to make the cut work better. Usually the rule of thumb for cutting between shots of the same subject you need a change of a full "size". e.g. Mid shot to Medium Close Up if going tighter, or Mid shot to Wide shot if going wider. One other benefit of tip #2: If you cut in tighter, you don't need to turn the full 90-degrees. You'll be able to get away with a 30-45 degree turn which will make the timing between the lines and the "beats" you want to hit MUCH easier. Okay, here's another bit of feedback for why I think it isn't working so well: The lighting on your main camera angle isn't working so well on you with camera to the side. It work alright, though, in black and white/grayscale. See, part of the reason that @ficolas2 said that the "I'm on arch (btw)" gag worked is because two additional things happened: You went from inset "picture-in-picture" tiny you to full-frame you shot from the side and in black and white. That also makes the idea work much better. This brings me to bonus tip 3) Instead of doing a transition to full-frame, then transition to the side-shot, then to grayscale/b&w (which made the whole thing a bit wonky)... *imagine if it went from inset picture-in-picture then straight hard-cut of you shot from the side angle in black-and-white/grayscale. That would work really well.* Another benefit from going to grayscale is that you can grade/tweak the contrast and brightness of the picture, too, because it doesn't need to match the colour, exposure, and contrast of your primary front-on angle. Gives you more choices. P.S. I'm not against the dissolves for everything. The dissolves between you full-frame and you as an insert "picture-in-picture" when you are showing code or your screen work well. You should keep those, it's a nice touch.
    3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. You forget the more crucial requirement: does the product have such scaling requirements that it necessitates this architecture? The answer for rhe majority of systems is absolutely not! It is most definitely not simpler to decouple the entire system and data, and unless you are Amazon-scale, you don't need to separate out everything to implement order fulfillment for an online store. The more logical requirement would be to accept that the majority of the steps in order processing and subsequent fulfilment are indeed asynchronous and need to be modelled as events. This does not intrinsically require a microservices architecture. You are putting the architecture before the real model, just like everyone else did when they went around selling microservices, and now you have the gall to blame us for being too stupid to implement it properly. The problem is, just like all the other salesmen of IT architecture, you too elide the true concerns and requirements! You act like you aren't selling anything, and are trying to help, but if thats true I'm afraid its you that are misunderstanding why so many so-called "microservice" systems are wrong and why people are doing it wrong. It was sold under false pretenses to the industry the first time, and you aren't actually doing anything to truly ameliorate it. Saying "I am just using the correct definitions of terminology", and "we need to understand these core concepts" doesn't get to the root of the problem, especially when for starters you think the problem is that products do genuinely need this type of architectural pattern. Especially from the ground-up, most businesses dont have the requirements thay necessitate it and they never will. That a microservices architecture supposedly allows management to have "smaller, agile teams" is not an actual business necessity for creating systems around microservices, and even mentioning it is deeply suspect.
    2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. I left you some feedback on how to make the angle-switching cuts work much better on your previous video, I'm gonna copy-and paste it here too, as it still applies. Cutting to a lower and slightly-wider angle shot isn't working either. Former filmmaker, current developer - I am just going to give you two specific tips that would help it work a bit better: I don't think you should entirely give this up, it's not a bad idea. It's just badly executed. 1) get rid of the dissolves between those two angles, just use hard cuts (EDIT: You're doing this now, and it's definitely better!) 2) try to crop/zoom the side angle tighter or much wider to make the cut work better. Usually the rule of thumb for cutting between shots of the same subject you need a change of a full "size". e.g. Mid shot to Medium Close Up if going tighter, or Mid shot to Wide shot if going wider. MCU to CU isn't enough, Mid shot to Long shot isn't enough, either. One other benefit of tip #2: If you cut in tighter, you don't need to turn the full 90-degrees. You'll be able to get away with a 30-45 degree turn which will make the timing between the lines and the "beats" you want to hit MUCH easier. (EDIT: You've already started doing this, but it's not completely working because the framing isn't strong enough of a change) Okay, here's another bit of feedback for why I think it isn't working so well: The lighting on your main camera angle isn't working so well on you with camera to the side. It works okay though, in black and white/grayscale. See, part of the reason that @ficolas2 said that the "I'm on arch (btw)" gag worked is because two additional things happened: You went from inset "picture-in-picture" tiny you to full-frame you shot from the side and in black and white. That also makes the idea work much better. This brings me to bonus tip 3) Instead of doing a transition to full-frame, then transition to the side-shot, then to grayscale/b&w (which made the whole thing a bit wonky)... imagine if it went from inset picture-in-picture then straight hard-cut of you shot from the side angle in black-and-white/grayscale. That would work really well. Another benefit from going to grayscale is that you can grade/tweak the contrast and brightness of the picture, too, because it doesn't need to match the colour, exposure, and contrast of your primary front-on angle. Gives you more choices. P.S. I'm not against the dissolves for everything. The dissolves between you full-frame and you as an insert "picture-in-picture" when you are showing code or your screen work well. You should keep those, it's a nice touch.
    2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380.  @Rabbithole8  You said, I am quoting you: > Israel presents the truth blemishes and all Yet you also say that the government doesn't. So you are either talking out both sides of your mouth, or not expressing yourself well at all. Well, when people talk about Israel, they are talking about the government and successions of government. I never once said "Israelis" as in all the individuals. You've also said you are not Israeli, if I am correct? If that's the case, why do you feel the need to Stan for them? Am I right in guessing you are Jewish, then? Listen, if you were Palestinian I bet you would have a completely different point of view and that is what people like you cannot do, you cannot put yourself in their shoes. I am completely capable of understanding how Israelis feel and sympathetic to their desires, that doesn't make those desires fair, and their belief that they are "God's Chosen" and "God gave us Israel" doesn't validate any of their claim to the land, but I so often hear it brought up. You mention 'antisemitism', but how you described Palestinians is full of an equal degree of bigotry, Palestinians just don't get a special privileged word for it. In answer to your question, I don't need to point out the corruption and cynicism of Arab leaders, because they are thoroughly covered in the west. I push back against narratives that flatter the State of Israel and the foundation of Israel, because that is what we in the west have been bombarded with all our lives. Especially with this video which is blatant Israeli government propaganda, designed to manipulate the citizenry of foreign countries. This video is produced as part of information warfare, and your initial comment completely reeks of the stench of it. Got it? Jews aren't special cases of human beings, they are equally capable of deceit, being murderous and evil as they are able to being lied about, murdered and have evil done to them.
    2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. ​​ @themalacast  I live in a shitty little city in Eastern Europe these days, and let me tell you, as an ordinary, non-disabled person, you should count your blessings that the ADA exists and is enforced. It has massive downstream effects for everyone, including on sidewalks and pavements. Try riding a bicycle, pushing the pram or stroller with your baby or little kid around town where you don't have any of the pesky demands of the ADA. Libertarians are so absurd (I'm as anti-leftist as it gets by the way), you live in a country with something like the ADA and have never had to deal with life in a place that doesn't have any of it, so you think that all it comes down to is a question of trade-offs. No, pal, once you have essential minimum standards that actually provide for things to be practical and functional and consistent, then and only then is it right to worry about the trade-offs of whatever you might consider doing above that. I hate all governments, I loathe all building inspectors getting paid thousands and thousands for doing basically nothing, I like to bitch and moan as much at the next guy, but again, try living in a society without proper roads and pavements of the standard you are used to, and see how you like it. Then, magnify the pain, frustration, and outright inability of access tenfold for disabled people. There are very few genuinely good pieces of legislation out there, and the cost of the ADA is essential because it provides essential requirements.
    1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. ​​ @conormcmenemie5126  They do have a gigantic amount of ICBMs. The most in the world. Keep not taking them seriously. Unlike America, the Russians actually do have working, battle-tested hypersonic technology. You guys are nutty, the "evil-doers" are better at this stuff than Lockheed-Martin. You should be very suspicious of all these contractors. The incredulity of this channel is absurd, the magical claims of stealth has never been proven in combat, the missile range of Zircon is 2000km and it's already on Russian submarines. These submarines are a lot more "stealthy" and longer-range than any airplane and they are real. I live right next to Russia in the EU, I am very aware of the threat they pose and I'm not stupid enough to believe in American hype, and I'm old enough to remember past last Tuesday. This video is promotional material for Lockheed-Martin, nothing more, there's not one single piece of verified evidence or data for the projected capabilities of the SR-72. So far American hypersonic technologies have been a bust... maybe this time it's different, or maybe those "busts" are part of a disinformation campaign (that is entirely possible), but either way you should all be a bit more suspect. I think the plane looks amazing, and the Blackbird is one of the most beautiful planes ever made, and yes it was a completely secret program for decades before its existence was known... So the Darkstar could already be for real for all any of us know... but using talking points about the USSR which hasn't existed for over 30 years, in to dismiss the threat of combat-tested Russian hypersonic technology and the invaluable data sets they have from using them, and other capabilities just to make the claimed capabilities of a secret Lockheed-Martin project is really weak.
    1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. ​ @Alex3Mythical  Are you taught that you drove people from the land and homes and ethnically cleansed them? I don't care how much you won as "spoils of war", that began in 1948 by your side prior to that and taking it as part of war was a continuation of the same aims. The amount of development and achievements that Israel has done on the land doesn't change that or justify it. The British gifting something that wasn't theirs to give doesn't legitimise it. Your God did not come down from heaven to gift it to you, neither was he speaking to Ben-Guiron. I'm not Arab, I don't like Islam, yes they do have an extreme hatred of Jews which predates the formation of the state of Israel. That doesn't change the facts of how the state of Israel was established. Nothing can take away from other virtues that Israelis have accomplished, the sweat and blood of building a nation is a great thing. But please don't try to tell me that Israel doesn't lie to itself about how it came to be, just watch the documentary 'Tantura' which is made by Israeli Jews which exposes this as a lie. Don't try to say that when in the specific cases where Palestinian Arabs have the documents which prove their ownership of the land or even the very house some settlers are now living in and they won't be given it back that isn't theft. Do your teachers tell you that it was an 'ethnic cleansing' or do they refuse to use that term? Germans get a real indoctrination of the horrors that occurred during WW2, don't try to tell me Israelis get an equivalent education. Come on.
    1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1