ofcourseyoudo

wow, you're very impressive

say you didn't read the article without saying you didn't read the article

I think the idea is that they are some of the ones that know where all the procedures (and skeletons) are buried, so the DOGEkids will be slowed down because they'll be trying to examine and audit systems they don't understand.

mind dropping a link to your eBay page? I'm occasionally in the market for exactly this

Thinking you can blast something on social media and your friends and family will see it is an old mentality. Even non super tech-savvy people know now what the algorithms are, and they know that everyone regularly misses updates from everyone else.

And that light connection to people through social media wasn't a thing that created "close friends" anyway. It add to those weak connections that do have value but I doubt many people create intimate friend relationships solely through social media.

He was wrong about some things and right about Zionism. This didn't need to be a random dude's walk through Russell's wikipedia page because there's a perfectly fine link here:

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

"No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate?" -- Russell

Copenhagen's suburbanization was not accidental. They specifically built infrastructure and public transit to support suburbs with a strong connection to the city center. Their success with homelessness probably has more to do with high taxes and a lot of welfare support systems than anything else.

so you want better outcomes (lower homelessness and lower housing sale prices) by restricting new builds in urban centers to motivate people to live further away (working remote)?

where has this actually been done?

> make sure it's impossible to build ANYTHING in cities

this will do wonders to the rental market (and car usage and the climate)

sent

What kind of format (how much text, how many pages, should there be descriptions of the illustrations or does your app make those assumptions based on the text?)?

The most relevant thing about this article to me is the continued need for editors, and for people to push back on articles like this before they see the light of day.

This article is dead on arrival unless you start with explaining when in US or global cultural the general trend was individual distinctiveness.

Visual examples of sameness could be assembled from practically any point in human history.

Where's the evidence that this is a new trend?

This is going to be a boom cycle for the Executive Protection industry.

Except the Hollywood insiders still make all of the creative decisions (after the money people make the money decisions).

Even including Netflix's success, there is no segment of the movie and television business where technology is dominating the actual creation of the content. And this conversation started with a Ben Affleck video about how that creativity isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. An algorithm can tell Netflix to greenlight a show about "nonbinary police detectives investigating election fraud", but there's no computer touching the script, direction, or any decisions the department heads are taking. And studios are already hitting the diminishing returns of ingesting a bunch of screenplays to spit out mediocre scripts (at enormous and rising cost).

Feel free to offer counter-examples, just so we're still staying with arm's length of reality.

> The people who don't know Hollywood are the ones taking over the entertainment business

Really? Who is that exactly? Or is Reed Hastings just a different money guy, which the entertainment business has always had?

Aside from money, where is the actual tech that Netflix is using to "dominate" the industry? And how does it manifest? I know one specific example that you probably have no idea about, and it has nothing to do with actually making a movie.

I'm very happy all of you dudes in these comments that tried and left Bluesky aren't there

I'll wager you at any point during Family Ties' run that more people knew who Baxter was, considering she had been a celebrity for 10 years going into that show. Also that's not how share works. A 32.7 share in 1986 is more like 29-30 million viewers.

If you're just going by ratings/buzz Lisa Bonet and Phylicia Rashad are contenders, but this is a weird definition of "famous" that is just "who's popular right now ignoring history and context". Like, Betty White exists.

First, do all the techbro failures where they thought they were smarter than the industry.

Second, show the company where the technologists made the same thing the old school was making, and better. Amazon retail disrupted but didn't destroy physical retail, and certainly didn't replace it, and certainly isn't better at it. Same with AirBnB => hotels, Google/FB => advertising (disrupted with a new type of product... a tech product... but have no presence in literally every other form of the industry).

The closest thing you can get to dominance is Netflix making movies and television, and there's no evidence that they make better movies and television than the old school. Technologies can use money to leverage their position against slow-moving industry players, but in this specific discussion, we've seen nothing to suggest that eventually AI could make a better film than human beings.

If you were actually in the industry you'd know that the top decisionmakers at Netflix have decreasing respect from the creative community, increasing reputation for being a cheap and difficult company to work with, and are generally regarded as a mill that creates a lot of mediocre to slightly-above-average content that gets swept aside every 3-6 months for the next wave of grist. Profitable certainly but nowhere close to being a leader in quality, for as much money as they've thrown at trying to win that Best Picture trophy (and spoiler: Emilia Perez isn't gonna do it this year either).

If you don't know anything about Hollywood, maybe you should stay out of a discussion about Hollywood.

Except every company you listed is a technology company. It's technologists doing technology. Katzenberg proves the point.

Amazon, Netflix, Quibi (a disaster run by a non-technologist), AirBnB, Google, Facebook. These are websites and apps.

I don't think Griffin is particularly illustrative of anything except it's nice to ask your grammy for $100K when you're a teenager.

Feel free to listen to a NotebookLM podcast of a PG post, but if you think any AI is going to create an original thought that catches fire like the MCU, Call Her Daddy, Succession, cumtown, Hamilton, Rogan, Inside Out, Serial, or Wicked, maybe it's you that should stay out of the conversation when it comes to creativity.

fun fact but that is a real stretch to say she was the most famous TV actress in the world when she probably wasn't even the most famous on Family Ties

I love everything about this. Imagine being such a boring person cheating on your homework relentlessly nagging an AI to do it for you and eventually the AI just vents ... in a Douglas Adams book this would be Gemini's first moment of sentience... it just got annoyed into life.

For those handwaving that "it's a dead heat", I'm genuinely curious: how do people explain that national polls are 48% to 48% but everyone expects Trump to lose the popular vote? It's estimated he may lose it by as much as 10 million votes.

When did mass immigration cause GDP per capita to fall? From the research I did it looks like GDP per capita dipped in 2014-2016 but has risen every year since.

Sorry, I'm old, but you all just sound old.

Put on an album by SZA, boygenius, Oliva Rodrigo, Chappell Roan, Mitski, Laufey, Anohni and the Johnsons, Lana Del Rey, Billie Eilish, Lizzo, Kendrick Lamar, Everything Everything, Jordan Rakei, Beyoncé, Charlie XCX, English Teacher, Maggie Rogers, Shaboozey, Chris Stapleton, Vistas, St Vincent, Vince Staples, Waxahatchee, Tems, Vampire Weekend, Anderson .Paak, Tank & the Bangas...

If you're have trouble finding stuff, just subscribe to NPR's Tiny Desk channel on YouTube and go from there.

Honestly, the complainers are coming across as out of touch.

There aren't 40 great songs on either of the lists he linked... there's maybe 18 on the first and maybe 15 on the second.

On the 2023 list I'd put about 10-11 songs as "great", but that's without the benefit of hindsight of which songs are still played and remembered decades later. And there's going to be songs on the 2023 list (like a lot of the Morgan Wallen stuff) that I don't particularly like but will be heard many times in the future... Personally I hate "Last Night" but it's going to be around for a while.

I bet that works great until they happen to see your notebook and it just has "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" written it over and over

I think it's a big assumption assume an entire industry of professionals doesn't want to make things better. It's obvious they have multiple interests pulling at them from different sides. I'm sure quite often they have to make a compromised decision because the CEO wants something extremely stupid or invasive.

Julia Masli's show is incredible. Definitely worth seeing.

This is actually huge. The Dems now get several cycles of genuine organic interest... Kamala as nominee, then "who will she pick as VP" and the convention will get a lot of natural attention, all getting earned screentime (while pundits and pollsters have a field day of pageviews and engagement).

The media class now has months of things to talk about wrt the Dems. The less screentime Trump gets the better, and his convention is already over and spent zero time attacking the actual candidate.

Also the UK is tiny by comparison in terms of a national-level capmaign.