Publish date “2019” ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn’t anymore.

The methodology of this study isn’t very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with “personal responsibility”.

Overall what a waste of my time.

Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.

I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.

But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory… In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it “what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying” and you would want a response.

I’m not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that’s roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.

What?

What projections are you looking at? It is a few cherry picked ones? Generally the projections going back to the 80s are in line with what’s actually happening, if anything they were optimistic.

Even if you don’t agree with projection or that we’re actually in-line with them, the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature isn’t disputable anymore.

Well of course not. These game studios were selling games at 60-80$ each. Microsoft bought them, then started providing the all the games for a flat fee of 15$ per month.

I assumed their strategy was to lose money in the medium term while they worked on getting people used to playing games on subscription. Where they make their money back is when they stop outright selling games at full price and make them only available on subscription, and then they slowly start increasing that monthly subscription cost.

In order for that to work they need a large library and like 5-10 years.

If they could somehow make this data available to search engines. Maybe we can start being able to google random problems and actually find solutions again.

Apple users don’t have a choice.

Users should still have choices after they pick their OS. This isn’t a new concept, Microsoft has been dealing with this same thing for decades. Just because Apple is now being asked to play by the same rules you’re having a hissy fit. It’s hilarious! 😂

I’m confused. You do seem to understand that apple developers don’t have a choice, but PC/game developers do. But you fail to understand that those are different?

I don’t think I can help you understand.

Apple: if you want to sell apps to iOS users you have to pay Apple, there is no other option.

Valve: if you want to sell your game on our platform you can, but you don’t have to, there are many other options you can choose to distribute your games.

Does that help you understand?

I thought I listed a bunch of cases where there were options (and not monopolies). But yes, 100% inside many ecosystems are monopolies, and those ecosystems/walled gardens have been slowly expanding every chance these companies have.

I’m saying the competition can only exist because products that actually fill the same need.

If you decide that you need product A, and have multiple options on where to get that, you have competition.

So if you’re looking for a Cola, you have options.

If you’re looking to play StardewValley, you have options where you want to buy it and which platform you want to play it on, you don’t need to buy a new game system to play it.

If you’re looking to play the latest Zelda game, you don’t have options, you need to buy a Switch.

If you’re looking to watch Ozarks, you don’t have options, you can only watch Netflix.

If you’re looking to just have something playing on TV and don’t really care what it is, you have options.

If you’re looking to listen to music, you have options, most of the steaming services have most of the music.

If you’re looking to be able to text friends, you have options, any phone will work.

If you’re looking to be able to iMessage friends and for your case only iMessage will work, iPhone is your only option.

Competition is complex and is more dependent on a consumer needs than just classification of what a product is. In your earlier point you used Apple as an example of a company that can increase prices despite competition, but really Apple is a prime example of a company putting up walls to an ecosystem making it really hard to leave once you’re in.

Generally in the current tech landscape there barely is any competition outside openish platforms. But with tech, you often can’t look at competition as product A vs Product B. Like while we can say that Window competes with OSx, it’s harder to say that a Mac laptop competes with a given Dell laptop (because what you can do with each OS is different to different people).

This is why I like to think of all the tv streaming services as different types of food stores. There is no supermarket that supplies everything, you’re forced to have memberships to the single butcher, the single milk man, the single bakery, etc. if you want a particular food, there is currently no (or very little) competition. You can certainly survive on just bread, and people are happy to do that, but that bakery can and will increase prices whenever because they aren’t really competing with the butcher.

I still think you’re looking at competition slightly wrong.

Coke and Pepsi do compete with eachother, along with the rest of the drink market. And overall prices in that industry are pretty low, some people will buy other competitors (the store brand Cola’s). But overall competition is working.

Apple only kinda competes. Sure a phone is a phone and a laptop is a laptop. But unless someone is entering the market for the first time. They already have applications they are looking to use, so if you need an iPhone, you need an iPhone, and same for a Mac. But if you’re an android or Windows user, suddenly you have a lot more choice because there is lots of competition!

The reason companies setup walled gardens, or pay for exclusive access to a piece of media is to erode competition. If a user wants that thing, they can only get it from that one place.

It’s only competition if they provide similar products.

The current landscape is like farmers markets and butchers. Sure they both provide food, but they don’t really directly compete with eachother.

This isn’t completely true, but it is the current standard.

A website can detect and block many user/password attempts from the same IP and block IPs that are suspicious.

Websites can detect elivated login fails across many IPs are react accordingly (It may be reasonable to block all logins for a time if they detect an attack like this)

I’m sure there are other strategies, I don’t know how often they are actually employed, but I wish companies would start taking this sort of attack more seriously (even if it’s not at all hacking)

Isn’t Ethereum using proof of stake now? I don’t think GPU mining exists for it these days.

Keep in mind that buying photos isn’t the only application of NFTs. People stopped buying valueless photos, but other implementations of NFTs kept on being used.

I work on an ARM Mac, it’s fine. If you’re just doing light work on it, it works great! Like any other similarly priced laptop would.

Under load, or doing work outside what it is tuned for, it doesn’t perform spectacularly.

It’s a fine laptop, the battery life is usually great. But as soon as you need to use the x86 translation layer, performance tanks, battery drains, it’s not a great time.

Things are getting better, and for a light user, It works great, but I’m much more excited about modern x86 laptop processors for the time being.

The “dream” is decentralized ownership. If you buy an item in a game, you could resell it to someone else outside the game (in theory this could mean that a game wouldn’t need to create its own marketplace). In theory items could be used across multiple games or platforms.

In reality, game publishers have little incentive to actually do the above things. Why would game x want to support items sold in game y? Why would a platform want to support a secondary market if that would only eat into the primary market.

There are some neat ideas, but the player base is too jaded against it for it to go anywhere anytime soon.