You may be interested in this newer paper, reconciling the work of Killingsworth and Kahneman & Deaton. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120
6,573 karma · joined April 2, 2007
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/aston; my proof: https://keybase.io/aston/sigs/-Wfz_5UlE591PWUmtc4fNLY0OYxOW-QiyEvnOMRMstI ]
def encapsulate(mod):
import types
out = types.SimpleNamespace()
def replace_global_scope(f):
# via https://stackoverflow.com/a/1144561, but tweaked for py3
return types.FunctionType(
f.__code__,
out.__dict__,
f.__name__,
f.__defaults__,
f.__closure__,
)
for name in dir(mod):
val = getattr(mod, name)
if callable(val):
val = replace_global_scope(val)
setattr(out, name, val)
return outThe music metadata situation is pretty bad, but the source of the problem is not really carelessness or greed or avoidance of responsibility (although those are all true). The true source of music metadata complication is the insanely complex copyright regime that music operates under. It's a legacy codebase about a century in the making that is constantly being patched up by congress, mostly by trying to change who is being protected from whom. (Among the folks favored at different times: labels, publishing companies, performing artists, song writing artists, radio stations, streaming music services, live venues, ...).
Perfect compliance with these laws is effectively impossible, so everyone is just doing the best they can. And any attempts congress makes to change how things work end up being gigantic legal battles because it's a zero-sum game and the more money in the "right" hands (e.g. these artists being ripped off) is less money in the other "right" hands (e.g. the unprofitable streaming service we all love).
So, roughly, the policy as it stands pays the biggest artists—or, really, the labels of the biggest artists—more money. Those big artists and labels are powerful enough that the chance such a change will be made is basically nil.
The reality is a little more complicated because the fixed per-stream rate is set based on the total number of streams, but to a first order approximation this is it.
S2011 10
W2012 10
S2012 9
S2014 7
W2013 7
S2013 6
W2016 6
W2015 6
S2016 5
W2014 5
S2010 4
S2015 4
W2011 4
S2009 3
W2008 2
W2007 2
W2017 2
S2006 2
W2009 1
W2018 1
W2010 1
S2008 1
S2005 1
S2007 1
What I wonder is, which way does the arrow of causation point? Did the success of these companies lift the entire ecosystem? Or were macroeconomic factors the dominant driver of capital entering this market, and those three batches happened to benefit?
edit: There's another possibility here, which is that there are two curves that may have maximized for companies around that time period. The first is the batch size, which has increased from ~10 companies to ~100 over the years. And the other curve is that companies take something like 5-10 years to mature. Maybe it's just that the companies of that vintage are just old enough to be really valuable, and that there were enough companies in the batch to push them to the top of this ranking.
My money is on macro effects, though.
[0] https://medium.com/the-mission/state-of-seed-investing-in-20...
The loudness wars (mass application of massive compression that reduces dynamic range) are the music equivalent of adding salt to savory foods. People like it better even though it's technically "worse".
That the world pays off equity in a company orders of magnitude better than labor for a company is the real thing that will complicate a young person's worldview.
1. How much money should consumers/advertisers
be charged for access or proximity to music?
2. How much money should artists, publishing companies,
record labels and other rightsholders be paid for
that access?
In reality, the actual floor on how much rightsholders get paid is only up for negotiation if the music comes as a result of interactive streaming from music provided by the rightsholders (read: Spotify). If it's internet radio, where the user doesn't choose what they hear (non-interactive, read: Pandora) the rate is set by Congress regardless of the business income or rightsholder desires. And if it's user-generated content subject to the DMCA (read: YouTube) there's no clear need to pay anything to the rightsholders (see Grooveshark). So, there are tons of arguments about #2.
As far as #1 goes, there's never been a music company that got to million-user scale and was long-term profitable, so clearly companies (and their investors) are willing to send more money out the door than they make. Fixed-rate subscriptions have a perverse property that your best users by engagement metrics are your worst users financially--they cost you the most with all that listening. Advertisement-based monetization matches consumption to revenue, which is nice, but as Pandora and Spotify will both attest, the revenue from ads thus far is way short of what they or the rightsholders would like.
So what to do? Talk about it in the press and see if you can get public outcry to force someone to pay your company more?
One example: The author observes that the unnecessariat is having lots of economic value extracted from them, e.g. from required, high cost healthcare plans. She implies things were better when there was no requirement (and thus no coverage). I think that's a common sentiment among conservatives, which is why they have voted continually against Obamacare. But as she points out, these are people for whom even moderate healthcare costs can be devastating financially. So why didn't they all vote for Obamacare and for the public option, subsidized by higher taxes? And why didn't she consider that a reasonable enough future to even mention it?
I worry the answer is that they've given up on using (representative) democracy to improve their lives.
Why fight it? Not just because it's patented. The bigger fear is that because it's patented, no one in the US will be able (willing?) to implement it, while folks in other countries with lax enforcement of IP laws (read: China) will. Since mining is a competitive race, a 20% boost should ensure only patent infringers will ever mine blocks.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016...
Uber is way behind Google and even Apple when it comes to calculating the best routes from place to place...
0. We're instructed to forget what we know about these characters, but then through hints we're supposed to recover the details of these characters' relationships to each other and the world?
1. Is this a real sheriff?
2. Did Robin Hood and Little John do anything deserving of being locked up?
3. What was the previous relationship between Maid Marion and Robin Hood? Were they truly lovers or something less?
4. What was the previous relationship between Maid Marion and the sheriff? Were they necessarily citizens with a power differential?
5. Would the sheriff have released his prisoners the next morning regardless of Maid Marion's actions?
6. Was Robin's "abuse" verbal or physical in nature?
7. What was the previous relationship between Little John and Maid Marion? Were they necessarily unlinked except via a mutual tie to Robin Hood?
8. What was the previous relationship between Little John and Robin Hood? Were they friends with some obligation to each other, or merely cellmates?
9. Was Little John truthful in his promise of devotion?
Many different rankings can stem from differing understanding of those facts rather than differing moral standards. Not to mention the conflation of Honesty with Morality.
The only rational explanations here are 1) these people are actually intending to short Bitcoin and don't realize there are cheaper ways or 2) these people don't exist, and this is a Ponzi scheme.
The latter seems more likely, especially since this site claims to be covering losses on defaults (an even crazier idea than taking a BTC loan in the first place).
Is there any way to recover the thread ids or parent comments for items on the the worst comments list?