Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday January 13 2016, @11:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the cord-cutters-ftw dept.

The average American watches more than five hours of TV per day, but pretty soon that leisure time may be dominated by YouTube and other online video services.

In an address at CES 2016, YouTube's chief business officer Robert Kyncl argued that digital video will be the single biggest way that Americans spend their free time by 2020 – more than watching TV, listening to music, playing video games, or reading.

The amount of time people spend watching TV each day has been pretty steady for a few years now, Mr. Kyncl pointed out, while time spent watching online videos has grown by more than 50 percent each year. Data from media research firm Nielsen shows that it's not just young people watching online videos, either: adults aged 35 to 49 spent 80 percent more time on video sites in 2014 than in 2013, and adults aged 50 to 64 spent 60 percent more time on video sites over the same time period.

Why the shift?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 13 2016, @02:31PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday January 13 2016, @02:31PM (#289063)

    Yet string comparison is well known to take O(n) time.

    Its O(constant) just traditional to call it 1. On any set of finite strings the comparison will never take more than a constant, that constant based on the max string length or maybe finite sized data type or finite sized machine. The number of strings will have no impact on run time.

    The biggest screw up with scalability is not understanding the problem. Best case insertion sort is O(n) given one new entry to add to a pre-sorted set, and quicksort is way worse at O(nlogn) and I got into a huge workplace argument years ago with a guy who apparently thought input has no effect on scalability. See I agreed with him that if you feed a QS a random pile of data its nlogn and insertion is n squared so QS is way faster for random data, but we're not sorting random data we're sorting already sorted data... I may be forgetting some details.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 13 2016, @02:34PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday January 13 2016, @02:34PM (#289064)

    The number of strings will have no impact on run time.

    The runtime of any individual comparison, to be specific. Is X>Y has no runtime impact based on having a million or a trillion other comparisons to check later. Obviously in practical use, today's value of "n" will have impact on a sort's total wall clock time.