joebob42

That's fair; I agree that the information is probably mostly out there somewhere, there's just a lot of noise in the signal. Perhaps I'm also over-indexing on the idea that I used to be able to just blindly buy something from a brand I trusted.

The nice thing about brands is it (used to be) a good standin for quality.

Costco is still sort of like this for me. If I need $thing, I can just go get whichever brand of thing Costco is selling. There are usually only a couple choices, and they're generally pretty decent and good value.

In the absence of branding like this, I need to go make an informed decision on every purchase, in product areas I'm often not particularly familiar with or qualified to judge. The dazzling array of widgets available in whatever category doesn't help if I can't tell a good from a bad widget, can't trust online reviews, and can't take "made by $brand_i_know" as a badge of it probably being fine.

I agree we've lost this to a large degree, but I do think it's more of a shame than you seem to be suggesting.

I think subscribers are sticky enough that this would pretty quickly drive revshare down.

Especially when I imagine a sizable portion of revenue comes from the very biggest streamers, who may not need discovery from twitch at all and would then default to the lowest value. Like, this model has sort of flipped setup from what I'd think you want; the more successful you are the lower twitches cut.

I suppose they could just make the minimum value 50% (iiuc this is the current value). But I'm still not sure how much it would help.

Or, not even lie, but just be unaware of the subconscious biases influencing them. Then they can say with a completely straight face that your group had nothing to do with it, even if that isn't true.

Also, frankly, if you just want to learn these things, do it free online. Duolingo, YouTube, etc do honestly a great job teaching these. I'm not discounting the benefits of a teacher and a certain educational environment, but where there are so many of orders of magnitude in cost difference it's not obvious to me the value difference is there.

Could you elaborate more? It isn't super obvious to me the connection between fine art and ad tech.

Very few pieces of software in my experience are doing anything 5 years later. 5 years seems like an extremely long time to be amortizing over.

Thousands of times, surely? At least if we're talking Americans, very few people have total lifetime expenditure less than hundreds of thousands I'd think. 100k is 2k a year for 50 years, even a million is only 20k.

Still using a pixel 3 I bought used for <150 3 years ago. Works totally fine, never slow, no issues with battery life. Before that had a p1 that worked for a long time too.

Maybe I've just been lucky but I've had very good experiences with pixel phones.

It feels like every time a fraud is uncovered we hear "this is good for crypto", with the implication that, but for this one last fraudster, the industry is clean and trustworthy.

Or alternatively, those colors are good for a beetle with a termite on its back for the same reason they're good for a termite. They help whatever the termite looks like blend in to the area where termites usually are.

The definition here is a fairly narrow one and doesn't nearly cover what I think of when I think of "pork".

Can someone explain the punchline here? I'm probably just slow but I can't put it together.

That's the spherical cow view of how markets work, and it's a meaningful part of what actually happens, but there's also a good amount of hype / new cycle/ non "discounted value of future cash flow" going on in practice.

They means social benefits, not health ones. They even say so in their post.

He means social benefits.

At least for me they absolutely are real and we're valuable to bring me out of my shell in college. Don't need it as much anymore, but drinking a bit in college had a transformatively positive experience for me socially.

That's 50 years ago. It's literally not even one lifetime ago.

For what it's worth, the asterix is confusing. Your comment gave me a wildly different (apparently incorrect) impression.

I mean, maybe, but if you pick an arbitrary currency, weighted by "market cap", btc has an extremely long way to go before being an unusually long lived one.

Thank you.

I see gps sentiment more often than I can understand, and it horrifies me. Especially as regards creative mediums (music, art, etc) where the point is to entertain. I may not know exactly what's wrong with a work, but I'm obviously qualified to critique it.

But even in other areas. It's easier to tell if something is good than to make a good thing. With a limited number of exceptions, I can tell if something someone did is crappy or not with a fairly limited understanding of their field.

I don't think you're asking an unfair question. Its now been answered, by many people, to the effect of "this study isn't convincing, but we don't see a simple way to design a convincing one".

It being extremely difficult or impossible to design a convincing study doesn't make the other ones convincing.

What if the patient wants other people in the circle? (I do, when I'm a patient. I've never really trusted doctors I've had due to my perception of competing motivations, and they've given me reason for that distrust more than once).

I think this may be sarcasm, but I also think it's literally true. Part of what I find interesting about the whole debacle is how many people really "told you so" well before the wheels started to come off (if that's indeed what's happening over the last year or so, will be easier to tell after the fact).

That's fair in principle.

I think if this needs to be captured and controlled, it's unfair and unreasonable for it to be a high margin business (since the margins would stem in substantial part from a government granted monopoly).

I'm certain low margin stewardship isn't what Altman has in mind.

One thing I don't understand: I only spend about 25-30 a year, despite making a devs salary. I think 45-50 ubi is the point where I'd just leave the workforce.

I think I missed the whole evil Microsoft bit in the 90s (a little too young), and while a lot of big tech has done a lot of harm since it hasn't felt so obviously, unashamedly evil.

Altman seems like the successor to Micro$oft to me. Every time I hear his name it's associated with some effort to regulate "ai" so his company can profit at the expense of humanity. It makes me so angry.

I'm attempting to carve that out, but I get that it's extremely difficult to do / might not be possible to do well.

I benefitted tremendously from work I did as a teenager (but did not have to do to survive). Obviously there's some bathwater and some baby here and it's a difficult balance, but I think completely banning the practice is unlikely to be the best possible outcome.

It's a little flippant but I kind of see your point.

Everything I did as a kid was more dangerous because I was an uncoordinated idiot with no sense of danger. I'm still mostly better off for having done the stupid things I did.

Why does attaching pay make it special?

The only aside is that I don't want to end up in a world where substantial fractions of children must work in order to be fed and housed. But if a kid wants to work and someone wants to pay them to, it seems good to me.

I think when you are specifically the government and will definitely refuse to sell the land, the line is a little grayer.