That chart doesn’t say anything about system resource usage.

Edit: found the performance chart now. Still no explanation on what performance tests(more than two sentences) they performed and how the scoring was applied.

Interesting. Do you have links that support your claims that I can read up on?

Yeah, that was you continuing to show how inexperienced you are.

For a remote exploit to work the computer or device has to expose ports to the network your computer is connected to.

“Remote” means that the vulnerability does not require local access. So if your friend connects his infected device to your wifi, all devices connected to the same network essentially are at risk, depending on what’s listening on the devices and what vulnerabilities they have.

Your idea about avoiding bad websites is ridiculous. History is full of examples where third party ads had been created to infect one way or another. That’s ads that users on legitimate site were exposed to. That’s just one little example. There have been numerous examples of malicious sleeping JavaScript code that suddenly wakes up and contacts it’s command-and-control server and then download malicious JavaScript code to unknowing site visitors.

Furthermore, you didn’t understand my question. Of course antivirus is able to stop malware it recognizes that enters through a remote exploit. The user with antivirus would at least have a chance of knowing that something was up each time and attempt to infect was made.

You on the other hand would sit there clueless with your little zombie computer and laugh at all them script kiddies.

But hey… You just continue trying to infect others around you with bad security advice and have a good day. I’m outta here.

I explained what a remote exploit was and gave examples of remote exploits.

Are you claiming that antivirus isn’t able to detect malware entering through an remote exploit?

Either you’re just ignorant or your working in the Russian malware industry.

Remote exploits doesn’t have anything to do with you running any infected executables. It’s about vulnerabilities in executables that you are running. Read up on the zx vulnerability or the log4j vulnerability.

One really really old attack vector is a buffer overflow attack. For example, if you’re running a clean VLC to watch a movie and your VLC is older than version 3.0.12 you’re at risk. The video file, that you “purchased” on PirateBay, could have been manipulated to crash VLC and force VLC run a specific payload in the video file. If that payload is ransomware it’s game over for you.

Yeah, just like wearing a seatbelt doesn’t guarantee that you don’t get injured, antivirus doesn’t guarantee that your computer won’t get infected.

But there’s no doubt about the usefulness of both seatbelt and antivirus.

I fully agree.

But my main point was that they’re taking an extreme risk if they’re running without active antivirus and access the network in one or another way.

Yes. But the discussion was about not running any since it killed performance.

If your computer is network connected you really really need antimalware running. In theory, a game server could be exploited and controlled to inject malware into game clients ( = you playing online).

If you use a browser to access internet, there has been malware infected ads that infect your computer when you visit legitimate web sites.

If you get infected, the malware most likely won’t do anything that makes you notice it. It all depends what the purpose of the malware is.

Ransomware? Then it stays hidden until it has encrypted all your files and then it pops up telling you to pay or you won’t be able to use your computer.

Collecting useful passwords? Getting full access to your Steam account is nice. Got some awesome weapons and armor in the MMORPG you play? That’s something they theoretically would script to be able to steal from you.

Or maybe the malware just stays hidden for now, contacting it’s control center now and then to see if there is any instructions.

Malware is business. The people behind it are businessmen and you are part of what they sell.

If you have a fairly modern computer there shouldn’t be that much impact on the performance.

You don’t want to have any active scanning for threats, like antivirus? If so, why?

…if not in a similar way

Twitch - not different from YouTube since they display ads and they have a premium service. On top of that I can add that without female streamers dressing sexy and not always playing video games Twitch would not have as high revenue.

Tiktok. - still shows ads so they are not financing things in a different way.

Vimeo - yes, they finance their services in a different way. But it still doesn’t answer how their content creators make money since Vimeo charge the content creators and doesn’t allow ads. But seriously, Vimeo isn’t a competitor to YouTube. I have a hard time imagining how they would grow to even a third of the size of YouTube.

It’s ok that you have that opinion.

By your reasoning, every single platform should be in the same shitty state of yt

What comparable platforms are you talking about that is not running ads or have some sort of pay-to-watch?

If we talk about Twitch and their revenue I can promise you that they would not be very profitable without female streamers dressed sexy that doesn’t always play video games.

We now live in a world where users got used to never have to pay for content or experience. Even though Google makes insane money in different areas the cost for running and developing YouTube is huge. I’m not a fan of ads (I don’t see ads when at home because of how I have set up my network) and the subscription plans always seems too pricey for the value I get when using different streaming services

But all of this doesn’t change the fact that even though I don’t like ads or paying for content I still haven’t come up with a better solution myself.

You might criticize the content all you want but it’s another discussion for another time. The question is still it still how to finance a site like YouTube, with the content and amount of viewers it has, without ads or fees.

Your solution with content owners/creators paying for the housing of their creation is Vimeo.

Not even close to YouTube

deleted by creator

If one video stream to one user uses 128 kilobyte per second out of your 100 megabit internet connection 781 users can watch that stream at the same time. However, the ISP will charge you per transferred gigabyte each month. So let’s say that you serve 781 users that video 24/7 in a full month of 31 days … It will be 100 megabit divided by 8 to get 12.5 megabyte. So it’s 12.5 megabyte per second. That’s 750 megabyte per minute. That’s 45 gigabyte per hour. That’s 1 terabyte or day. So around 31 terabyte traffic per month. (If you use this much bandwidth you will get a discount but it’s still not going to be

Now, that’s just for 781 simultaneously users.

What is we need to serve 781000 simultaneous users?

Now, this far we’ve only been talking about one video on repeat 14/7. What about 100000 videos and enough programmers and computers to design as system that lets each and every user choose any video whenever they need to? Now you suddenly have thousands of servers and harddisks running in a couple of hundred places on earth 24/7.

Now this is for you to provide your users 100000 different videos even before you start to pay content creators for their hard work.

Also, you need to be available 24/7 so now you have to make backups, redundant servers on different location that can take over in case of an accident, dedicated internet connection (being alone on the internet cable is not the same as sharing it with 100 other sites) and a whole lot of other things you need to take care of.

What about offering the 500 million videos YouTube offers their users?

… and all of this cost is paid out of your pocket?

But do we really want to pay the price for others getting it better?

https://youtu.be/XLGzFQg_1xc

I’m not saying that’s how I want it to be but unfortunately his point in the end it’s depressingly accurate…

While there are a billion things Google does that annoys me I’m not able to figure out how to create and maintain a video streaming platform without ads or paywall that finances both creation and the providing material.

I mean, who are the competitors and how do they finance it if not in a similar way?

You she?