u/KAZKALZ

Here in Port Elizabeth, we are getting 22 units for R100.

Has the rise of AI largely replaced the need for programming courses on platforms like Udemy and YouTube?

To be clear, I'm not talking about using AI to write code for you.

Before AI became mainstream, I learned JavaScript through courses by instructors like Jonas Schmedtmann and a few other excellent creators. I found that structured, step-by-step approach incredibly helpful.

These days, though, if I don't understand a concept or run into a bug, I usually ask an AI to explain it instead of searching for a YouTube tutorial or going back to a course. I still write the code myself. I'm just using AI as a tutor to improve my understanding.

So I'm curious: has AI significantly reduced the demand for programming courses, or do you still find structured courses valuable?

Has the rise of AI largely replaced the need for programming courses on platforms like Udemy and YouTube?

To be clear, I'm not talking about using AI to write code for you.

Before AI became mainstream, I learned JavaScript through courses by instructors like Jonas Schmedtmann and a few other excellent creators. I found that structured, step-by-step approach incredibly helpful.

These days, though, if I don't understand a concept or run into a bug, I usually ask an AI to explain it instead of searching for a YouTube tutorial or going back to a course. I still write the code myself. I'm just using AI as a tutor to improve my understanding.

So I'm curious: has AI significantly reduced the demand for programming courses, or do you still find structured courses valuable?

Also, are there any up-to-date JavaScript courses in 2026 that you'd genuinely recommend?

Are things back to normal now, I need to order a few essentials for my grandmother as I am out of town for work

The Springboks are playing England this weekend, and from what I've seen, they've struggled to sell out Ellis Park.

I know the obvious explanation is the economy. Inflation is high, people have less disposable income, and tickets, transport, food, and drinks all add up. That makes sense.

But I have another theory, and I'm genuinely curious whether anyone else feels the same.

Have the Springboks become oversaturated? Are we experiencing Springbok fatigue?

It feels like Springbok branding is everywhere now. Primary schools regularly have green-and-gold Fridays. Pick n Pay is full of Springbok merch shirts, cups, cooler bags, chairs, and just about everything else. Even Bonaqua water bottles have Springbok branding. FlySafair constantly promotes the Springboks as well on every dam flight.

Fifteen or twenty years ago, it didn't feel like this. The Springboks still had huge support, but they felt more special. There was more scarcity, and because of that, every Test match seemed like a bigger occasion.

Now it sometimes feels like the brand is everywhere, all the time.

I also wonder whether SARu is chasing commercial success so aggressively that it's slowly diluting what made the Springboks special. It almost feels as if the focus has shifted towards maximising sponsorships and appealing to casual or 'bandwagon' fans, at the expense of the die hard bok fan.

I'm not saying this is the main reason attendance is down. The economy is probably still the biggest factor. But could oversaturation be contributing? Could constant exposure be making the Springboks feel less like an event and more like just another brand?

As a bandwagon fan, I don't mind spending 1,500 for a ticket to go see The Boks because that's probably going to be a once-off purchase for me. But as a die-hard Springbok fan, spending that 1,500 because I'm probably going to want to watch the Springboks over and over again is quite steep. That's why. I think that the pricing as well as the marketing is more geared towards the bandwagon/touristfan to get the most out of a them.

Unless I don’t understand what feminism is, isn’t feminism supposed to mean that men and women are equal? That no one is different, and no one is better than the other? And that what you expect from a man, you should also expect from a woman, and the standards should be the same across the board?

My thinking is based on a conversation I had with my friend, who says she is a feminist. She said she does not respect a man who does not pay on the first date. But my question is: if you are a feminist, shouldn’t you also have the same expectation of a woman? That a woman can ask a guy out, take him on a date, and pay for the first date? It doesn’t have to be an expensive date.

Isn’t that what equality really is? That we are both treated the same? I’m not sure. Help me out on that one.

I'm thinking about starting a faceless documentary-style YouTube channel where I use my own voice for the narration instead of outsourcing voiceovers.

One strategy I'm considering is using platforms like Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and Google Trends to identify topics that people are actively discussing. My goal would be to find the sweet spot between topics that have significant public interest and topics that aren't already saturated with YouTube content.

For example, I might cover a political scandal, corruption case, major news event, or another issue that is generating a lot of discussion online but hasn't yet been covered extensively in documentary format.

My thinking is that this approach would help me get feedback from the market more quickly, gather data, and iterate faster as a new creator. Rather than creating documentaries on random topics, I'd be creating content that people are already interested in while still trying to provide a unique angle.

What do you think of this strategy? Is using trending discussions and search interest a good way to choose documentary topics, or would you approach it differently?

I'm thinking about starting a faceless documentary-style YouTube channel where I use my own voice for the narration instead of outsourcing voiceovers.

One strategy I'm considering is using platforms like Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and Google Trends to identify topics that people are actively discussing. My goal would be to find the sweet spot between topics that have significant public interest and topics that aren't already saturated with YouTube content.

For example, I might cover a political scandal, corruption case, major news event, or another issue that is generating a lot of discussion online but hasn't yet been covered extensively in documentary format.

My thinking is that this approach would help me get feedback from the market more quickly, gather data, and iterate faster as a new creator. Rather than creating documentaries on random topics, I'd be creating content that people are already interested in while still trying to provide a unique angle.

What do you think of this strategy? Is using trending discussions and search interest a good way to choose documentary topics, or would you approach it differently?

I'm thinking about starting a faceless documentary-style YouTube channel where I use my own voice for the narration instead of outsourcing voiceovers.

One strategy I'm considering is using platforms like Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and Google Trends to identify topics that people are actively discussing. My goal would be to find the sweet spot between topics that have significant public interest and topics that aren't already saturated with YouTube content.

For example, I might cover a political scandal, corruption case, major news event, or another issue that is generating a lot of discussion online but hasn't yet been covered extensively in documentary format.

My thinking is that this approach would help me get feedback from the market more quickly, gather data, and iterate faster as a new creator. Rather than creating documentaries on random topics, I'd be creating content that people are already interested in while still trying to provide a unique angle.

What do you think of this strategy? Is using trending discussions and search interest a good way to choose documentary topics, or would you approach it differently?

I'm thinking about starting a faceless documentary-style YouTube channel where I use my own voice for the narration instead of outsourcing voiceovers.

One strategy I'm considering is using platforms like Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and Google Trends to identify topics that people are actively discussing. My goal would be to find the sweet spot between topics that have significant public interest and topics that aren't already saturated with YouTube content.

For example, I might cover a political scandal, corruption case, major news event, or another issue that is generating a lot of discussion online but hasn't yet been covered extensively in documentary format.

My thinking is that this approach would help me get feedback from the market more quickly, gather data, and iterate faster as a new creator. Rather than creating documentaries on random topics, I'd be creating content that people are already interested in while still trying to provide a unique angle.

What do you think of this strategy? Is using trending discussions and search interest a good way to choose documentary topics, or would you approach it differently?

I am trying to understand this. How does this impact girls moving forward.

I bumped into a guy today who recognized me.

I was on my way home when I made eye contact with him, and he made eye contact with me.

As he walked past, he recognized me, and his face lit up.

I remembered that I had helped him a couple of

years ago, probably around the time of COVID.

He was going through a very difficult period in his life. He had been going door to door, asking for some change so he could get enough money for taxi fare to go home.

I decided to help him. Since I don't usually carry cash, I walked with him to an ATM, withdrew some money, and gave him enough for his fare.

After that, I checked in on him from time to time. Keep in mind, he was a complete stranger.

During those conversations, he shared that he was going through a custody battle with his former partner and was struggling because he couldn't see his child.

He was deeply depressed, unemployed, and carrying a lot of pain.

I didn't do anything extraordinary. I simply gave him taxi fare to get where he needed to go, listened when he needed someone to talk to, and for the first two or three weeks, I regularly checked up on him over the phone. Again, this was someone I had never known before.

Eventually, we lost contact.

Then today, after a couple of years, we happened to walk past each other. He looked at me and said, "Thank you so much. I'll never forget you."

He told me that he's doing well now.

That moment put a smile on my face and genuinely made me feel good.

I just wanted to share this story with someone because I don't really have anyone to share it with.

Sometimes, the smallest acts of kindness can have a bigger impact than we ever realize.

I assisted him, even though I was going through an incredibly difficult period in my life

Hi guys,

Would it be wrong for me to suggest that copywriting and marketing are two different things?

In my understanding, marketing is about expanding the market. It's about creating new opportunities, increasing awareness of your product, and introducing it to people who may not have considered it before. Copywriting, on the other hand, is about converting those people.

Yes, I know that people often use copywriting and marketing together, but I see them as two completely different disciplines that work well together.

For example, let's say we have a weight-loss supplement. From a marketing perspective, instead of positioning it simply as a general weight-loss supplement, we could market it as a weight-loss supplement specifically for women over 40 who are going through menopause. In this case, we are positioning the same product for a different segment of the population that may have a specific need for it. To me, that is marketing.

Similarly, we could take that same weight-loss supplement and position it for another audience, such as vegan women who are trying to maintain a healthy weight. Again, this would be marketing because we are identifying and targeting a different market segment.

Copywriting, however, is different. Copywriting is what you write in the marketing materials to convince, persuade, and ultimately convert those potential customers into actual buyers.

Whatever happened to those copywriting titans who used to talk about how copywriting could create you incredible wealth?

I'm thinking of people like Stefan Georgi. Back in the day, at every opportunity, he seemed to mention that he was charging around $50,000 per sales letter. I'm not sure how accurate that was, but it doesn't even look like he's a copywriter anymore. He seems to have abandoned the industry and is now promoting something called Stefan Brain, where you can generate UGC content using his AI model by simply entering a prompt.

What happened to guys like Kyle Milligan, Justin Goff, Dan Lok, and all the other copywriting gurus who used to tell people that copywriting was one of the best money-making skills you could learn?

The reason I ask is that many of the same people who heavily promoted copywriting not as a get-rich-quick scheme, but as a high-income skill seem to have disappeared from the space. Dan Lok is one example, but Stefan Georgi is especially interesting. He used to sell his RMBC course for around $1,000, and his Copy Accelerator program cost somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000.

So where are all these people now? What are they doing? Have they genuinely moved on to other opportunities, or have they simply moved on to the next grift?

I feel that one of the signs that copywriting is dead is that a lot of people who used to sell its courses have evaporated like a fart in a storm. It's like programming; there aren't many programming course sellers out there. It's a good indication that the industry has tanked, in my opinion.

I'm planning to start a faceless documentary-style YouTube channel, but I'm a bit stuck on how much time I should spend learning editing before I actually launch.

Right now, I'm learning Premiere Pro and After Effects because I want to produce quality videos. However, I come from a SaaS background, and in SaaS we often talk about the concept of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). The idea is that you don't need all the bells and whistles to launch. If people still use and enjoy the product despite it being basic, that's a sign that you've found product-market fit.

I'm wondering if the same principle applies to YouTube.

Instead of spending months trying to master After Effects and create highly polished Johnny Harris or Vox-style videos, would it make more sense to just start publishing with a simpler format and see how the audience responds?

My goal is to create documentary-style content focused on topics in my country, such as corruption, politics, social issues, and current events. There isn't much content in this style locally, which makes me think there may be an opportunity.

Part of me feels that I should focus on creating videos that are "good enough" rather than waiting until my editing skills are perfect. If viewers engage with the content, return for future videos, and the channel gains traction, that would suggest there's demand for what I'm making. Then I could invest more time into advanced motion graphics and production quality later.

For those who have started YouTube channels, especially documentary-style channels, would you recommend launching early and improving over time, or waiting until you've developed stronger editing and motion design skills?