If your great, great grandfather was a pioneer and moved into the SLC valley 150 years ago- a particularly harsh and rugged place, and then started a small farm that was perfectly sustainable, but then millions of transplants moved in, what exactly makes them so entitled to the water under your property? Sounds like theft to me.
This is fine. As long as there's legal protections which let him dictate how his likeness will be used, and his estate can hold the studios accountable to it.
The studios of course, don't want to have to get this kind of permission, and that's the rub.
Note that this is sometimes the result of those in high risk situations managing to get the legislature to require the risk to be spread to others to keep their rates from being insane. (Florida is a prime example--they're spreading the cost from property on the front line for hurricane damage across wider areas, so now everybody's insurance is high rather than some being completely uninsurable.)
While I have not kept up with the California situation I suspect something of the sort is going on, they aren't being allowed to look at local wildfire risk in setting premiums.
(I work in pricing for a large insurer)
Firstly, if Google did offer this feature, it would likely be targeted by Search Engine Optimization (SEO) exploits. In essence, any time a new search parameter is introduced, there's a risk of it being manipulated to prioritize certain content—especially by those interested in gaming the system for increased visibility or monetary gain. If YouTube's search feature were to be plagued by such spamming, it could severely degrade the user experience and lead to Google having to strip it away. While not a guarantee, it's a probable outcome given the history of SEO misuse.
Secondly, YouTube's primary focus is on its recommendation algorithm rather than search functionality. With billions of videos hosted, the key goal is to keep users engaged by serving up content they're likely to enjoy, thereby increasing view times and ad revenue. The search feature, while useful, is not as integral to this objective. Further, offering full-text search could provide yet another avenue to manipulate the algorithm, which YouTube surely wants to avoid.
Finally, implementing and maintaining such a feature would require substantial resources. It would necessitate hiring teams of high-salaried employees to moderate and ensure fair use of the feature, adding considerable operational costs. Considering these factors, it seems that Google has made a strategic decision to avoid this feature for now.
That said, the fact that third-party solutions are emerging, such as the one shared here, shows that there's a demand for full-text search capabilities. It also underscores the potential that these solutions have when unencumbered by the constraints faced by a tech giant like Google. This provides a fascinating insight into the dynamic relationship between third-party developers and tech corporations and the way they can complement each other.
First, you could have phrased this differently and been less aggressive. Edit: I see you edited your comment after the fact. Good job.
But more importantly, has their been a study on layoffs like this and long-term health of companies? By the metric of the stock price, Boeing is doing better than it was 20, 30, 40+ years ago. Yes, they've have some problems, but the modern Boeing is, according to the share prices, more valuable and therefore a better company.
So, I'm also genuinely curious about if research has been done on this outside of immediate stock price and more about general strength of companies.