Agreed, I really don’t think it’s the fishing itself.

Half the problem on any dating site is the classic: 1. Be attractive 2. Don’t be unattractive.

If the dude is holding a fish but looks like Chris Evans, she will probably still be interested.

On top of that, dudes holding the fish will overwhelmingly tend to look like the wrap around sunglasses wearing, goatee having, overweight, Trump voting cliche. Women probably build an association to not being compatible with dudes who love fishing after enough times of seeing that and connecting these dots.

For real? Can’t believe I’ve never heard of this.

Really? You’d rather a headphone jack than something as incredible as the camera?

I am team headphone jack. But it’s not as bad as people will say. You can get a USB-C to 3.5mm converter for like $5. Just attach it to your headphones and never remove it, as if its the same old cable.

You’d ditch your phone’s camera just to not have to do what I just described?

I use wireless when it makes sense, like on the airplane, and I use wired when it makes sense, like on my exercise bike.

You showed your home bandwidth. It means absolutely nothing in this discussion.

How often do people watch the first few seconds of a video and not finish it? It happens a lot. It probably happens a lot more often than that user actually finishing it. We could be talking about doubling Google’s bandwidth requirement. Not to mention server CPU time, disk I/O. Do you have any idea how expensive the operational costs of YouTube probably are as it is? This is an efficiency game to successfully run a video platform which supports up to high bitrate 4k video at this unfathomable scale, servicing the entire planet.

It makes the most efficient sense for them to only let you buffer a little bit at a time, not more than you need.

I’m not kissing Google’s ass. I’m just pointing out that if you want the service to exist, it has to be designed as efficiently as possible, otherwise it won’t exist for long.