215 karma · joined December 20, 2016
Only techies care about decentralization. Most people would rather follow a Twitter feed rather than an RSS feed. Most would prefer a mega forum like Reddit rather than multiple, standalone forums with separate accounts. There are also network effects that give centralized platforms more of a competitive advantage.
I keep hearing people talk about the need for decentralized social media, but nobody knows how to make it an attractive, viable option for the masses...especially when such a solution wouldn't be as profitable (or as frictionless) as Facebook, Twitter, etc.
In the 90s, MS attempted mobile devices using Windows CE (based on Windows 3.1—long after the release of Windows 95) and that went nowhere. Microsoft has always been the first for the longest time they were incapable of building things people genuinely wanted to buy.
If Apple didn't make the iPhone or iPad, all MS could do is rip off Blackberry. They wouldn't have made anything worthy of spurring the mobile industry we have today.
And Apple didn't really need that $200M from MS. Instead the investment had more symbolic value—signaling that Apple was still a viable company that had software support from the biggest tech company of the day.
Also, before Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Larry Ellison wanted to buy up shares for a hostile takeover and then install Jobs as CEO, but Jobs talked Ellison out of it.
Where did you go to school? How did your education differ from what you've seen in America?
We need people to mindlessly buy stuff they don't want want/need in order to grow our <strike>house of cards</strike> economy.
I associate CBS with bland procedural crime dramas and awful three-camera sitcoms. CBS All Access would have been doomed without Star Trek: Discovery. Admittedly, the show isn't particularly good, but I'm a trekkie so it doesn't matter. On the plus side, I discovered The Good Fight (a surprising smart, entertaining and well written show) so I now I have a legitimate reason to give a damn about All Access.
And then Apple will offer their own gateway drug (Lord of the Rings?) and Disney (...well they could just offer their back catalogue alone and still be a major player) and so on.
I've often felt the same way about the need to label one's self in order to have an identity. But I can empathize with people who have some kind of undefined handicap/limitation and ultimately find solace in a label and sense of community.
For example, pretty much anyone over the age of 40 who has dyslexia will tell you how cathartic it was to be diagnosed when previously they were just regarded as stupid or lazy. A diagnosis meant that they had a medical condition that they could overcome (or at least manage). If they were simply stupid then it meant there was no hope for them. So their new, better, label mattered.
However, one could argue that pretty much anyone who suffers from any kind of limitation...is suffering from some kind of medical malady. Perhaps, in the future, people we will create new labels and therapies for many of the currently unlabelled, but afflicted, people as well.
Are you talking about a compilation of articles/essay or one post per book (Kindle Singles)?
> For me, it lost my images for some reason
Sorry about that. I have fixed the issue.
They could pay out half of their fund and still make do with $123B in the bank.
Good lord.