HN user
The article is fiction. The company launched less than a year ago. The founder claims that the company has had more than 100 clients, in less than a year? Pure marketing fiction — I doubt more than 10% of this article is true.
An optimistic outlook is that we have the knowledge and resources to adapt to a changing environment without loss of life. A realistic counter to that is if we were able to utilise these resources and knowledge effectively then we wouldn’t have found ourselves in this situation. An outlook that splits the difference is… we’ve made mistakes but maybe crisis is what’s required to get everyone working together using our resources and knowledge for the greater good.
A sad outlook is that we are all rich people living charmed lives that are not at risk so we can bury our heads in the sand. We aren’t the people who will die from our mistakes.
Either you’re misunderstanding closet to mean a built-in wardrobe or… I don’t know what other explanation there could be. American closets (i.e: a whole room of 100+ square feet, dedicated to storage of clothes) just don’t exist in “normal” European flats/apartments/homes. You’d be an outlier if you have an American-style closet in Europe. Regardless of how much you’re spending, they just don’t exist in >95% of properties.
You’re arguing that a younger audience would never care for what critics have to say, in which case, Pitchfork was doomed to die regardless of the choices they made: if you’re not bringing in a new audience, you’re dying, because of churn.
Perhaps wokeness hastened the loss of the old audience but evolving to meet the changing tastes of your potential audience is important, otherwise, you’re setting a date for your death.
That said, I don’t think it was a cynical attempt to ride a trend but rather evolution in response to the writers and editors evolving in their understanding of music and the world. After all, Pitchfork was always a representation of the tastes of the writers and editors. Of all the people you’d expect to be at the forefront of cultural evolution, writers about culture are up there.
Audm was an article narration service which was eventually acquired by the New York Times. The service is now part of the NYT but still narrates articles across many publications — including the New Yorker.
it’s trivial to avoid. Do not accept instructions outside of the standard instruction channels. The only reason this scheme works is because of bad processes, bad training or a culture of fear (where employees feel compelled to comply with any demand regardless of process for fear of losing their job).
If an employee routinely receives email or zoom instructions to transfer $25m without any sort of sign off then the company is completely at fault for terrible process.
Why are they a violation of the tourist status? A tourist is someone who brings money in to the local economy, that’s why tourists are coveted. If a person visits Japan for a week and spends $2000 on a hotel and $1000 on activities, why would the Japanese government change their view of the trip if that tourist was also taking zoom calls from their hotel room?
There’s the belief we all apparently hold that tourism isn’t tourism if you take a laptop, but nobody can evidence such a rule because it’s apparently an implied rule: maybe we can get to the bottom of it by asking why, what explanation / reason would there be for such a rule? Why does taking zoom calls from your hotel room change the nature of your trip?
That’s not true. The jurisdiction that your business operates in doesn’t change depending on where you’re located. If you’re running a business without a business entity (why?) then you can use a merchant of record service (like Paddle) which will serve that role for you.
A digital nomad visa serves an important purpose: it allows someone to stay in the country longer than as a tourist. The existence of a digital nomad visa bolsters the understanding that digital nomads are allowed to use a tourist visa.
A working visa is very difficult to get in most countries and requires local sponsorship because of the risk to the local economy — you’re potentially taking a local job from local people. Tourist visas are easy to get because there’s no risk: a tourist arrives, spends money, leaves. A digital nomad is a tourist by every measure.
The reason tourist visas are short is to ensure people don’t move to the country without permission. A digital nomad doesn’t present a risk to the local economy so bumping their length of stay is safe for the local economy, hence, digital nomad visas.
I’m asking because I visit Japan on a tourist visa and I have never encountered this rule. I’d like to learn more about it from official sources.
The purpose of a digital nomad visa is to allow for a longer stay.
Can you share the tourist visa regulations for Japan that say this? I haven’t been able to find any. Thank you :)
“The most similar existing status is usually used by tourists, does not allow work and allows a maximum stay of just 90 days”
I don’t think that’s correct. A tourist visa doesn’t allow you to work locally but they do not limit working remotely for an overseas company. For example, if you’re on vacation in Japan from the US and an emergency happens at work, you can join a call without risk of deportation.
I mean small relative to big artists, not small in absolute numbers. If you have less than 1k streams you probably have less than 50 listeners which is basically nothing.
A (relatively) small audience would be made up of tens of thousands of listeners generating millions of streams. There are many, many independent artists that fall into this group.
People say this but don’t understand the reason artists don’t make much per-listener on Spotify etc. is because of their record deals, it’s nothing to do with Spotify. If you’re an independent artist you can live comfortably off of a small Spotify audience!
The stories you hear about an artist getting pennies on millions of listens are because of their record deals and the credits on their work. You can’t solve this with software: artists enter these deals long before software is involved.
I’d argue that Spotify (and YouTube and TikTok etc) have done more for musicians because they’ve made it very easy to make a living when you have a core listener base. Software has not rescued major label artists from major label contracts because… how can it?
The music of today is built on the music of yesterday and so on and so forth. The top 100 of 1970 has very little variety when compared to the top 100 of 2023. There’s 5 decades of genres that have developed since 1970. Electronic music hadn’t even entered the mainstream! Go and listen to the top 100 of 1970 and then the top 100 of 2023.
You can argue that music in the 1970s was better / unique / less repetitive but to say it was more varied is demonstrably false.
the top 100 is more varied today than it was at any point in history.
Don’t charge based on profile visits: you’ll punish people for utilising the service and you’ll create a negative experience when someone reaches that limit. People should choose to pay as an active decision to gain access to new features. I’d be happy to pay for a service like this but “the link you’ve shared isn’t going to work any more unless you pay immediately” would leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
We have so much lower hanging fruit to tackle first that doesn’t even require research: what’s the point in extending your miserable life a couple more miserable years? Adding a decade on to your life of extreme privilege is worthwhile, but for the majority of people on earth, simply getting them on to a nutritious diet would do far more for their quality of life and their lifespan than slowing down aging ever could. So much human suffering is a result of policy, not lack of scientific understanding.
Slowing down aging is like going to space: it’s a fun complicated problem for nerds to think about but it is utterly meaningless to the quality of 99% of lives on earth.
The headline is technically accurate but miscommunicates the conclusions we should draw. The subjects sniffed women’s “emotional” tears but the control was an odourless liquid. Therefore what they actually validated was whether smelling something before engaging in a game designed to illicit anger reduced anger. What if they smelled perfume? The tears of a man? Non-emotional tears? Freshly cut grass? There’s zero evidence that women’s “emotional” tears were important.
He’s a compulsive criminal, he was able to continue committing crime despite being restricted from accessing a computer. He wasn’t confined to an institution because he did a crime, it’s because he has admitted that no matter what he will continue this behaviour and so institutionalising him is the (regrettable) next step in trying to rehabilitate him. He will be released when he’s rehabilitated, whether that takes a month or a decade - he’s institutionalised indefinitely but not permanently, there is a path out.
OpenAI is more religion than company. Sam could be a deeply flawed leader and still have extreme loyalty due to what OpenAI has achieved under his leadership. The people at OpenAI are believers in a mission and that means they’re far more likely to allow personal failings to slide. He’s more a Musk figure than a whoever-the-ceo-of-McDonald’s-is figure.
You’ll need an SSN to open most credit cards, it’s very difficult to get a credit card without residency. The business banks that specifically cater to overseas founders (like Mercury) make banking easy but that doesn’t extend to churning credit cards.
Edit: put simply, it’s very unlikely that opening an LLC will help you in obtaining credit cards as a non-resident.
I much prefer going through a self checkout but it’s a poor solution. The traditional checkout process makes sense because there’s a person involved, if no person is involved then there are much better solutions.
Stores in the UK like Tesco and Waitrose have had scan-as-you-shop devices for many years, and there’s other stores (like M&S) which support scan-as-you-shop using your smartphone. Amazon Fresh has the zero-scanning magical detection of what you’re buying using cameras.
If you’re going to have a checkout, have a person at the checkout. If you want a more efficient process, don’t have a checkout, let customers scan as they shop.
Addiction isn’t rational so the answer may be as unsatisfying as “people got addicted because they got addicted”. Many people addicted to real slot machines are addicted because you press a button and something happens, the fact that you can win real money is not much of a differentiator between these apps and real slot machines — because addicts in a casino aren’t walking away in profit either.
The problem is more fundamental. As with Uber, WeWork is an evolution of a simple and well understood business model… but layered with some high-tech fantasy about being able to change the fundamentals of the universe.
WeWork could have succeeded with the franchise model you describe or the focus on being a flexible leasing option for enterprise… but we wouldn’t have heard of them, that wouldn’t be the WeWork we ever knew. WeWork only became big because of the mythology, otherwise it would just be a nicer Regus… which existed before WeWork and will exist long after.
WeWork’s core business was mythology, like Uber, and every other “technology” business from the 2010s. You can peel back all the bullshit and say that their “core business” was good but it was all the bullshit that made WeWork, WeWork.
Twitter is not a tech company: their commercial output is not technology, technology is just a tool, Twitter is a social platform. Musk is not acting as a CTO, a CTO doesn’t set product direction. A CTO delivers for other stakeholders using technology. Every company uses technology now, it’s not a differentiator. Even if a company is a technology company, the CTO role doesn’t change, a technology company still has a CEO. The CFO at a finance company doesn’t set product direction.
The question is whether Facebook’s use is likely to confuse consumers: software isn’t a category of its own, everything is software now, and this is different software — any context immediately distinguishes the usages (and there’s no reputation for Facebook to be maliciously trying to leverage). I doubt Facebook will lose. The lawsuit is just chancing for a settlement based on it being easier for Facebook to settle than defend.
No inside knowledge but the “changed” account numbers sounds a lot like their banking partner (evolve) withdrew service with a few weeks notice, which would explain “temporarily” withdrawing cards too — as they’re linked to Evolve.
I’d normally guess a contract dispute (with Evolve leveraging their position, and Wise calling their bluff) but the mentions in this thread of overwhelmed verification and fraud, it seems plausible evolve withdrew from the relationship for cause.
That’s occupation, not ownership. Ownership can’t exist without a legal or cultural structure to enforce it. A human can occupy land and defend that occupation with violence but that does not mean they own the land. A society can exist without ownership.