pingpongchef

If i wanted to claim this article were propaganda, I would use this detail as evidence in favor

A significant number of videos are disabled from embedded play

Fees businesses charge will be a nonissue when businesses are unable to operate in California

Regulation increases the barrier to entry, making competition more difficult to start

Subscriptions are an overused pricing model. Businesses love subscriptions because they love recurring revenue. The desire for RR pushes businesses to pursue products the fit the revenue model rather than solving customer problems. Consumers notice their bills stacking up with subscriptions and start to question the value they're getting for their subscription fees.

Some examples off the top of my head:

1. Grubhub's Plus, https://www.grubhub.com/plus

2. The majority of streaming services

3. Stitch Fix's recurring fix

4. Video game industry subscriptions (too many to dig into)

NYT's slavish devotion to a subscription model follows this pattern. They want to get subscriptions so they structure offerings to fit. Compare to a platform like Substack, where they offer a rich ecosystem with just a few different price models. I've believed for some time that news media like NYT overvalue their current offerings and need to innovate. Doesn't seem like they're interested.

Don't take my statement to claim all subscription offerings are bereft of value. Simply that there are so many lazy offerings that subscriptions are better as a signal of waste than value.

Influenced, but I've been considering it for about a year. As the parent poster mentioned, I too am finding very little of the Netflix content enjoyable. Ahead of my first viewing of He-Man I made some mental predictions of plot directions I wouldn't like that they might do. All of my predictions happened in the first episode so I cut the cord.

Long-term there was always going to be a marketplace process for piracy. As the pain/expense of legitimately acquiring content exceeds the pain/expense of acquiring it via other means, consumers will make choices that suit them. With Netflix we saw a sharp decline in the pain/expense for legitimacy so we saw a dip in piracy. Nothing magical about it

Conjecture: their content and suggestions are garbage because they aren't allowing the data to drive their decisions independent of their ideological or public perception concerns.

After He-Man released I ended my subscription, just shy of being a 10 year customer.

Those are still moves in the right direction. Requiring a cosigner for example brings in another party who can evaluate the situation and contribute to the decision to take out the loan vs. pursuing an alternative.

Your point about putting pressure on prices is what I would call ideal: anything that could help rein in spending and deliver value is better than what we have now.

Bankruptcy should help with this but student loans are currently a special case

the blockchains are too inefficient to host it directly.

True, this needs to be addressed before I can get what I want. In the case of media it's got to be either on-chain or strongly coupled so that once published, an artifact remains available even if comparable artifacts are produced. It probably won't happen top-down, media giants are keen to keep their content in their walled gardens. Journalism might be a good fit to start with.

I've been wondering about this as well. So far there does not appear to be an accepted route to fixing this in BTC, but there are proposals. I've heard (unreliably) that there are already transactions out there containing snippets of data which can be composed into something but I have nothing concrete.

I'm most interested in the censorship or in more friendly terms, authenticity gains that blockchain can provide. In a world where works are being revised, "special edition"ed or straight removed from availability, I'm eager for blockchain technology to sidestep these dark patterns.

Sounds great but we should be worried about the cobra effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

Stocks and bonds are still coupled to fiat currencies and will be directly impacted by their perceived deficiencies when compared to crypto.

Hard assets like real estate, land, gold don't fit that bill, but each of their own tradeoffs. Right now cryptocurrencies are making gains against those hard assets so they are more attractive. An investor may wish to diversify among some or all of these options.

Somewhat good advice, but with a caveat. While a good narrative is generally helpful, results still matter. Case in point, a team that ships quickly but also has crunch time can craft a story about heroic devs staying long hours to ship a product, but this is not better than doing things right the first time to avoid crunch

I can think of a few reasons competition can be beneficial.

1. Exert downward pressure on union fees

2. Offer alternatives in the case of union corruption

3. Offer alternatives in union priorities/mission

Also, I don't follow how competition in the two spaces, firms and unions, is necessarily different in kind. To the degree that competition "weakens" unions, the same should apply to firms.

Skepticism is good, but not outright dismissal

Not making mistakes isn't productivity, that's the bare minimum of acceptable behavior.

Barring fraud, lavish expenditures that you describe would be counted as compensation not investment and thus the picture changes dramatically.

Thanks for presenting this. I suspected this might be a problem across administrations rather than Trump-specific.

Problem is that it's a subtle accusation of speaking in bad faith or an accusation of lacking agency. In order to have respect for the other person, you can't start from either of those positions.

but have a warm safe place to sleep with a locked door and fridge seems reasonable.

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me but we also know that there's a great deal of variation on all of the details there (warm, safe, locked door, refrigerator). I see it as necessary to allow/require individuals to make the decisions on all those details. I see it as a necessary condition for people to be free.

People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life.

I'm sympathetic to this outlook. It's the details of it where I get tripped up with people. One area in particular is the state where someone has no worthwhile skills. I think that while a human being has no less dignity when he has no worthwhile skills, that is an unsustainable state that needs work. Similarly, I question the implicit assumption that there is a connection between someone's economic value and intrinsic worth as a human being. Perhaps what we disagree on what is it looks like for a society to place minimum acceptable value on such life.

Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it.

I don't dispute that money and time are required, and that it may not be easy. However I still maintain the responsibility lies in those individuals/workers.

This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends.

There is a version of the statement I could agree with, but in your specific statement of barbarians at the gate, it's also a possibility to not feed them. It really depends and since it's a hypothetical I don't want to engage with it too much. But I do agree that you can't expect to build up a huge class of miserable people and expect stability forever. The question to me is, how can we best serve them? I adamantly prefer to teach and raise them up, difficult as that may be, then to place demands/restrictions on employers.

If you're not being paid enough to live on 40 hours a week, you're underpaid.

This is perhaps a core disagreement, which is wroth digging into. I'm willing to engage with this idea but the disagreement area is critical here.

First, what it means to "live on 40 hours a week" is highly variable from person to person, is it not? If you agree, shouldn't we then avoid making broad judgments based on that concept? I suggest that we leave such judgments to the employee and leave it on him to make decisions on those details.

Second, supposing that an individual decides he doesn't earn enough: isn't is better to rely on him to investigate what he can do to address the situation? There are many things that can be done to address the situation from working more hours, to changing jobs, to taking on training for a new job for example. Isn't this preferable?

I might be in the minority, but I don't read you as being a shill. It's a reasonable framing of the problem, i.e., not as a problem of production but of disposal. We already have markets, taxes and subsidies around the waste disposal lifecycle. What if we simply left it to waste disposal firms to run?

I suspect there is criticism in two areas, one in that putting the costs on consumers is either unreasonable or impractical. I don't agree it's unreasonable, but concede that it may be politically undesirable. The other is that waste disposal firms are likely to continue to do harm in the form of dumping waste into oceans (or similar approaches), which I see as fair. I'd be in favor of pursuing disincentives to such practices.

You can go down this road, but it looks like you're advocating for each party to simply do whatever he wants. In which case the viewing party will continue to value archiving.

It's easy to use words and not have to square them with existing ideas when you also feel free to redefine them to suit an agenda. That's what we see commonly now.

TiddlyWiki is ideal for a few scenarios I work on.

1. It's great as a notebook for organizing a creative endeavor like tabletop roleplaying. 2. Its tagging querying capabilities are robust. So robust that I've had success using it to tag media and run complex queries (e.g., select all items having tag1 and exclude items having tag2 and exclude items with value "value1" for key "key1") to where I can use it to manage media

The cases of backout that I saw were because they didn't like being on the same side of an issue with people they otherwise disagree with [1]. Nothing to do with the statement.

[1] https://twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/1280646004136697863 (Archive: http://archive.vn/7IYxP)

If white supremacists can believe contradictory ideas and still be white supremacists, then how are we to determine who is and isn't? By this logic there's no evidence you could give me to prove you're not a white supremacist since contradictions. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I hope you see how untenable such a line of thinking is.

Also, I do understand the possibility that someone could claim to believe one thing and not actually believe it. It simply requires a higher burden of proof.