I think there are always creative ways to differentiate the two tiers for those who care.

“Free tier users relinquish all rights to their (anonymized) queries, which may be used for training purposes. Enterprise tier, for $200/mo, guarantees queries can only be seen by the user”

> We can detect which parts of your video do not include any speech, and could be cut off your video, saving you hours of editing to cut off silence and non-relevant content.

Please don't (over)do this. My brain can't handle a literal constant stream of speech. I've had to stop watching quite a number of videos about topics I was interested in because of this.

For example the 'Wired' YouTube channel. The 'tech support' videos look really fun, but I can't watch and listen to that for more than 30 seconds.

So I just do 'never recommend this channel again' on those.

Are more people like me in this regard, or is it just my brain?

This died mostly because the defaults were so terrible.

Years ago I emailed Joe Armstrong about concurrency stuff. I had no idea about anything like multithreaded programming or distributed systems or anything like that, but I had read Erlang was a language well-suited for that stuff.

I sent an email asking some seriously noobey questions about concurrency (about why mutation was bad, what made the Actor model work, etc), and instead of a response like "Go read a book and stop bothering me", he responded back with an incredibly long, well-written email explaining a lot of the minutia of how Erlang avoids a lot of pitfalls and generic concurrency theory. He was really good about explaining things in a way simple-enough for me to understand, without coming off as patronizing or rude.

About a year later I got a job doing Erlang, and I sent him another email telling him this, saying something to the effect of "sorry for bothering you a year ago, but your email was really helpful to me".

His response was basically "You have nothing to apologize for! I've always thought it was important to help people asking questions, especially early in their career".

I can honestly say that his kindness and patience changed my life for the better. If he hadn't held my hand a bit to make distributed systems make sense to me, there's a very high likelihood that I would still be writing Flash applications for a Tae Kwon Do studio.

RIP Joe, you will be missed.

> What I mean is they all repeat in cycles that are called incommensurable — they are not likely to come back into sync again.

I remember a few years back there was some quick guide to visual design that I saw that recommended this. To provide what appeared to be randomness over repeating samples (or at least prevent easy pattern matching in the brain which is distracting), take three images that can of different prime number lengths, then repeat each one and put them next to each other.

I believe the example used was the ruffles in a stage curtain, where there were a few layers. Each layer was a repeating image of length 3, then length 5, then length 7 (but the image itself had some variations between ruffles within it). You won't get a point where all the images all stop and start at the same point (a dead giveaway of the pattern) until length 105.